Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019
Verdict: A Pryce & Hopkins Masterclass
Story: The Two Popes starts with the death of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican must elect a new Pope, bring the Cardinals from around the world together to go through the voting system, one the world is waiting to hear the news. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pryce) and Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger (Hopkins) are the favourites to wise to the spot, with Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict.
Jump forward to 2012, Pope Benedict is involved in a scandal, which sees Jorge return to Rome hoping to be granted his retirement. Pope Benedict refuses his request, as the two clash on their beliefs, with Jorge wanting to see the church move to the future, while Pope Benedict believes the church should never change.
Thoughts on The Two Popes
Characters – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is from Argentina, he has always bought the people together, he sees the church needing to not only let the future in, but embrace the changes they could never have considered because of their beliefs, he is one of the two challengers voted for to become the next Pope before stepping away from the votes. Years later, he wants to retire and isn’t getting answers, he confronts the pope, wanting to get answers, until he learns the true reason for their meeting. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was always meant to replace Pope John Paul II, he wins and becomes Pope Benedict. His reign will see him facing scandal before he decides to make a massive decision, one unheard of in the church. He has always believed in follow everything the church has before, which is why he gets challenged the most. We only meet a younger version of Jorge as we see his journey to rise to Cardinal in Argentina, while anybody else is usually just showing the two around.
Performances – Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins give two of the greatest performances of the year, the two legends of the industry shine carrying the film with their performances through the film.
Story – The story here follows the close election of a new Pope and how the Cardinal who stepped out of the race he never wanted to be in, is the one person that the new Pope can turn to in his time of need to save the church from a scandal which could destroy it. This is one of the most interesting and engrossing stories you will see, it shows a behind the curtain look at how the church operates, with minds that believe in a God, even if they do follow different beliefs with how they can connect to more people. We do get to learn how Jorge was given his chance in the first place, had experiences that Pope Benedict never went through to get to his position. The idea that this is a conversation between two religious men with differences, it shows how people can disagree without needing to turn into an ugly fight for no reason, they can respect their differences.
Biopic/Comedy – The biopic side of the film shows the private conversation between two religious figureheads that went through to make one of the biggest decisions in the church’s history, which is also done in a comedic way, where we get to see the two have a joke along the way.
Settings – The settings are beautiful from the country house to how the Vatican is recreated to make us believe we are right there with the Popes.
Scene of the Movie – The truth conversation.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not hearing the confession.
Final Thoughts – This is an acting masterclass from two of the greatest actors Hollywood has seen, it highlights the big change the church would take and how to have a conversation where both sides disagree, but accept the difference of opinions.
Overall: Acting Masterclass.
Story: The Two Popes starts with the death of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican must elect a new Pope, bring the Cardinals from around the world together to go through the voting system, one the world is waiting to hear the news. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pryce) and Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger (Hopkins) are the favourites to wise to the spot, with Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict.
Jump forward to 2012, Pope Benedict is involved in a scandal, which sees Jorge return to Rome hoping to be granted his retirement. Pope Benedict refuses his request, as the two clash on their beliefs, with Jorge wanting to see the church move to the future, while Pope Benedict believes the church should never change.
Thoughts on The Two Popes
Characters – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is from Argentina, he has always bought the people together, he sees the church needing to not only let the future in, but embrace the changes they could never have considered because of their beliefs, he is one of the two challengers voted for to become the next Pope before stepping away from the votes. Years later, he wants to retire and isn’t getting answers, he confronts the pope, wanting to get answers, until he learns the true reason for their meeting. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was always meant to replace Pope John Paul II, he wins and becomes Pope Benedict. His reign will see him facing scandal before he decides to make a massive decision, one unheard of in the church. He has always believed in follow everything the church has before, which is why he gets challenged the most. We only meet a younger version of Jorge as we see his journey to rise to Cardinal in Argentina, while anybody else is usually just showing the two around.
Performances – Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins give two of the greatest performances of the year, the two legends of the industry shine carrying the film with their performances through the film.
Story – The story here follows the close election of a new Pope and how the Cardinal who stepped out of the race he never wanted to be in, is the one person that the new Pope can turn to in his time of need to save the church from a scandal which could destroy it. This is one of the most interesting and engrossing stories you will see, it shows a behind the curtain look at how the church operates, with minds that believe in a God, even if they do follow different beliefs with how they can connect to more people. We do get to learn how Jorge was given his chance in the first place, had experiences that Pope Benedict never went through to get to his position. The idea that this is a conversation between two religious men with differences, it shows how people can disagree without needing to turn into an ugly fight for no reason, they can respect their differences.
Biopic/Comedy – The biopic side of the film shows the private conversation between two religious figureheads that went through to make one of the biggest decisions in the church’s history, which is also done in a comedic way, where we get to see the two have a joke along the way.
Settings – The settings are beautiful from the country house to how the Vatican is recreated to make us believe we are right there with the Popes.
Scene of the Movie – The truth conversation.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not hearing the confession.
Final Thoughts – This is an acting masterclass from two of the greatest actors Hollywood has seen, it highlights the big change the church would take and how to have a conversation where both sides disagree, but accept the difference of opinions.
Overall: Acting Masterclass.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
If anyone tells me they didn’t enjoy The Irishman, I would have to say, fair enough. There are reasons not to. As an entertainment it isn’t Goodfellas, as a thriller it isn’t The Departed, and as a classic gangster tale it isn’t anywhere near The Godfather, of course. It sags in the middle, ends morbidly, and, at three and a half hours, even in its brightest moments, you can find yourself waiting for it to finish. But, anyone who tells me The Irishman isn’t a great film is blind to the artistry at work here from a gang of septegenarians with a mighty track record. If it is one thing, it is Epic!
Also in the negative column is the ageing and de-ageing technology, which whilst pretty damn good is noticable and sometimes distracting. Myself, I was willing to forgive these faults, just for the privilege of being swept away once more by Scorsese’s eye for a shot and moments of pure mood, of which there are too many to count.
De Niro hasn’t been this good for years, that seems to be accepted knowledge. Pacino is Pacino, what else would you want him to be? But, it is the return from retirement of Joe Pesci that really impressed me. Almost certainly a career best performance at the age of 77 – always underplayed and menacing, there were times he acted the big two under the table. Of the 10 nominations at the 92nd Oscars, this is the one I hope lands.
If Scorsese also wins for best director, I wouldn’t complain either. Looking at his body of work, I count this as the 20th film I would class as very good or better. And although less “fun” it is certainly a better, classier film than The Departed, his only win to date. Other gongs I would give serious weight to are Thelma Schoonmaker for editing, and production design, which is as rich and detailed as it could possibly be, at times breath-takingly so.
There has been much made of the idea that this is Scorsese atoning for his sins in using violence as entertainment. And it is true that this film seems to meditate more or regret and loneliness as a side effect of a violent life. There is blood, people die violently, but these moments are often brief and unshowey, keeping the focus on the men (and it is always the men) who choose to live this way. In the end, we all age and grow weak; time advances and we are left with nothing but memories, surrounded by people who can’t remember who we are and what we did in our Golden days.
I found the last half hour very moving and somewhat depressing. I think we are meant to. No big climax, just a fading away. It felt like the hours after a party, full of joy and noise, when you are finally left alone with only yourself for company. More than any other emotion, this is what I have taken from this experience; and it’s a good trick, fully intended, that I applaud. And it is what ultimately makes the film feel mature and meaningful.
However, for all the praise it deserves, this isn’t a film I will choose to watch again in a hurry. And I think that will be common. It lacks the tension of a tighter, shorter film, and emotionally it is often difficult to connect to these men and their brutal deeds. If that is the point, then I get it… but there are plenty of films to go to, as already mentioned that have a more satisfying and rounded feel. Recommended highly, but with reservations.
Also in the negative column is the ageing and de-ageing technology, which whilst pretty damn good is noticable and sometimes distracting. Myself, I was willing to forgive these faults, just for the privilege of being swept away once more by Scorsese’s eye for a shot and moments of pure mood, of which there are too many to count.
De Niro hasn’t been this good for years, that seems to be accepted knowledge. Pacino is Pacino, what else would you want him to be? But, it is the return from retirement of Joe Pesci that really impressed me. Almost certainly a career best performance at the age of 77 – always underplayed and menacing, there were times he acted the big two under the table. Of the 10 nominations at the 92nd Oscars, this is the one I hope lands.
If Scorsese also wins for best director, I wouldn’t complain either. Looking at his body of work, I count this as the 20th film I would class as very good or better. And although less “fun” it is certainly a better, classier film than The Departed, his only win to date. Other gongs I would give serious weight to are Thelma Schoonmaker for editing, and production design, which is as rich and detailed as it could possibly be, at times breath-takingly so.
There has been much made of the idea that this is Scorsese atoning for his sins in using violence as entertainment. And it is true that this film seems to meditate more or regret and loneliness as a side effect of a violent life. There is blood, people die violently, but these moments are often brief and unshowey, keeping the focus on the men (and it is always the men) who choose to live this way. In the end, we all age and grow weak; time advances and we are left with nothing but memories, surrounded by people who can’t remember who we are and what we did in our Golden days.
I found the last half hour very moving and somewhat depressing. I think we are meant to. No big climax, just a fading away. It felt like the hours after a party, full of joy and noise, when you are finally left alone with only yourself for company. More than any other emotion, this is what I have taken from this experience; and it’s a good trick, fully intended, that I applaud. And it is what ultimately makes the film feel mature and meaningful.
However, for all the praise it deserves, this isn’t a film I will choose to watch again in a hurry. And I think that will be common. It lacks the tension of a tighter, shorter film, and emotionally it is often difficult to connect to these men and their brutal deeds. If that is the point, then I get it… but there are plenty of films to go to, as already mentioned that have a more satisfying and rounded feel. Recommended highly, but with reservations.
Natacha (374 KP) rated Kings of the Wyld in Books
Sep 29, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
This was another book that I picked after it was recommended from one of my favourite Youtuber, Holly Heats Books, and as always I wasn't disappointed.
Kings of the Wyld is a "getting out of retirement of one last job" story. A band of five getting back together to save the daughter of one of them. The story is very well written, action-packed with a touch on humour here and there.
Things I liked:
-All the characters are very well written. They all have their own unique voice, personality and they offer something different to the band as well as the story.
-The relationships between all the characters are well crafted. By the end, you know and feel how close this band is and how much they love each other.
-I generally adore when an action/adventure book or movie has just a hint of comic relief without going overboard and turning it into stupid moments. And the author knows exactly when and where to add this little moment of humour to make you laugh without turning the story into ridicule. Love, love that!
-You never get bored. There is always something happening, twists and turns and obstacles being thrown to our heroes, without the story getting repetitive.
-They weren't a lot of twists and most were obvious but one of them I didn't see it coming. Maybe if I had paid more attention I could have seen it coming but I didn't so I was quite surprised.
-The final battle. I spend the entire book wondering how 5 guys will manager to fight a whole army. And the answer wasn't something that I was expecting and it was epic! Maybe with some clichés, like the "final speech to get people to follow you", but they were all so well done!
Things I didn't like:
-The fantasy world contains EVERY creature ever mentioned in fantasy, folk stories, and mythologies. From dragons and orcs to merpeople to vampires and werewolves. Which is amazing and interesting but... because there are so many creatures mentioned some of them are not described maybe because we should know how they look (?) and if you add all the author places and his own fantasy creature some time I got confused and overwhelmed and didn't necessarily know what kind of creature the author is talking about and I couldn't picture the scene properly in my mind.
-Magic has no rules. Which I don't really mind but.... [Spoiler] at some point it was used in a way that kind of put me off. Towards the end, our primary MC loses his hand and I liked the fact that the author didn't shy away from injuring his character but... this was fixed a chapter later with a magic potion that just made his hand grow back. What? Why? And this is where a draw the line on the "magic with no rules". Don't use random magic as a way to "fix" your character because you didn't want them to be hurt after all! Scars are witness to our own story and our past. Those guys went through a crazy adventure they should have scares and injuries, so if one of them loses his hand during a battle why go back on that a chapter later with a convenient magic potion. I was quite mad about that part but it was just a minor part of the story.
Despite a couple of tiny details, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and would highly recommend it. It was one of the best books I've read so far this year.
The review can also be found here: https://natachainreviewland.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/king-of-the-wyld-by-nicholas-eames/
Kings of the Wyld is a "getting out of retirement of one last job" story. A band of five getting back together to save the daughter of one of them. The story is very well written, action-packed with a touch on humour here and there.
Things I liked:
-All the characters are very well written. They all have their own unique voice, personality and they offer something different to the band as well as the story.
-The relationships between all the characters are well crafted. By the end, you know and feel how close this band is and how much they love each other.
-I generally adore when an action/adventure book or movie has just a hint of comic relief without going overboard and turning it into stupid moments. And the author knows exactly when and where to add this little moment of humour to make you laugh without turning the story into ridicule. Love, love that!
-You never get bored. There is always something happening, twists and turns and obstacles being thrown to our heroes, without the story getting repetitive.
-They weren't a lot of twists and most were obvious but one of them I didn't see it coming. Maybe if I had paid more attention I could have seen it coming but I didn't so I was quite surprised.
-The final battle. I spend the entire book wondering how 5 guys will manager to fight a whole army. And the answer wasn't something that I was expecting and it was epic! Maybe with some clichés, like the "final speech to get people to follow you", but they were all so well done!
Things I didn't like:
-The fantasy world contains EVERY creature ever mentioned in fantasy, folk stories, and mythologies. From dragons and orcs to merpeople to vampires and werewolves. Which is amazing and interesting but... because there are so many creatures mentioned some of them are not described maybe because we should know how they look (?) and if you add all the author places and his own fantasy creature some time I got confused and overwhelmed and didn't necessarily know what kind of creature the author is talking about and I couldn't picture the scene properly in my mind.
-Magic has no rules. Which I don't really mind but.... [Spoiler] at some point it was used in a way that kind of put me off. Towards the end, our primary MC loses his hand and I liked the fact that the author didn't shy away from injuring his character but... this was fixed a chapter later with a magic potion that just made his hand grow back. What? Why? And this is where a draw the line on the "magic with no rules". Don't use random magic as a way to "fix" your character because you didn't want them to be hurt after all! Scars are witness to our own story and our past. Those guys went through a crazy adventure they should have scares and injuries, so if one of them loses his hand during a battle why go back on that a chapter later with a convenient magic potion. I was quite mad about that part but it was just a minor part of the story.
Despite a couple of tiny details, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and would highly recommend it. It was one of the best books I've read so far this year.
The review can also be found here: https://natachainreviewland.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/king-of-the-wyld-by-nicholas-eames/
10bii Financial Calculator
Finance and Utilities
App
Look no further, you have found the best Financial Calculator app available. In-App Purchase:...
Jamaica
7.8
Rate It
Tabletop Game
This is a pirate-themed tactical race game with player interaction and side goals (e.g. detouring...
Boardgames PirateGames GatewayGames RacingGames BeautifulGames
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 16, 2021
Works well enough - despite a weak villain
The Daniel Craig James Bond films are a different breed of Bond films. Instead of each one being a “one-off, fun romp” filled with Gadgets, Villains, Beautiful Ladies and Wild Stunts, the 5 films of the “Daniel Craig era” of Bond films was something else…gritty, serious and serialized, each film standing on it’s own but also building on the previous one to tell one long story.
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It will be up to the individual to decide whether this type of storytelling works for Bond.
For me, it does.
Picking up where SPECTRE left off, NO TIME TO DIE follows Bond and his lady love from that film, Madeliene (Lea Seydoux) as they are followed and threatened by agents from SPECTRE. After an action-packed opening, Bond heads into retirement only to be drawn back in.
Director Cary Fukunaga (BEASTS OF NO NATION) crafts a satisfying, if somewhat too long and dragged out, finale for Craig as Bond battles villains joined by old friends (and fiends) along the way (as a bit of a final Curtain Call for them all), meets some new allies (and adversaries) all while dealing with his own feelings.
And it is this part of the film that “Bond purists” will be the most annoyed about. JAMES BOND HAS FEELINGS! He isn’t just a “Super-Spy” with a quip and a gadget, Fukunaga and perennial Bond writers Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (along with Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge) craft a Bond that has cracks in his veneer that show doubts and fears underneath.
This rounding out of the character works for me in this film, especially if you put this film in the context of all 5 Craig Bond films. It is a natural growth for the character and one that Craig handles well.
As for the performances, regular Bond players Ralph Fiennes (M), Naomi Harris (Moneypenny), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Tanner) and Jeffrey Wright (CIA Agent Felix Leiter) all have a moment (or 2) to shine and they show up on the screen like old friends showing up at a going away party. Christoph Walz also reprises his role of Blofeld from SPECTRE (it’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and it was good to see Blofeld and Bond play chess one last time and Seydoux’s performance as Bond’s “lady love” is “good enough”.
But it is the newcomers to this story that stand out to me - with one strong exception. Lashana Lynch (as a fellow 00 agent) and Billy Magnussen both shine in this film as do Ana de Armas as another femme that Bond encounters - this is the 3rd strong performance I’ve seen from the former model (following strong turns in BLADE RUNNER 2049 and opposite Craig in KNIVES OUT) and am eagerly awaiting what she will do next.
Only Rami Malek as villain Safin fails to be interesting and that’s where this film falls down. Safin’s encounters with Bond bring the energy and excitement down, thanks to Malek’s “underplaying” of a role that should have been overplayed. His performance just doesn’t work.
But, this is a Bond film, so the acting and plot always take a backseat to the action - and the action in this film is better than average, but not A-M-A-Z-I-N-G as one expects from Bond films. Couple that with Malek’s underwhelming performance and this Bond film will leave audiences with an unfulfilled feeling.
Unless, you are invested in the journey that Craig has taken Bond on - and the culmination of that journey to conclude this film. If you are invested in that, this film work. If you are not, it will not.
It worked for me.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in Movies
Jun 27, 2018
A "good enough" ending to the trilogy
Going into the filming of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Director Christopher Nolan had a problem on his hands. The previous film in this trilogy - 2008's THE DARK KNIGHT - had turned into a cultural phenomenon based, in part, on the late Heath Ledger's bravura performance as The Joker. So how does he top it?
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
The Effects Just Aren't Good Enough
Ang Lee is a visionary Director that loves to push the envelope of advances in movie-making technology, so the plot contrivance of GEMINI MAN (a Government Assassin is being chased by his much younger clone) was right up his alley - and he makes good (enough) work of the technology that "de-ages" Will Smith and puts the older and younger version of himself on screen at the same time. This was also his 2nd film (after BILLY FLYNN'S LONG HALFTIME WALK) that Lee shot in 4K 3D at 120 frames per second (the "normal" shooting speed is 24 FPS).
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
Is the third time a charm for Mr. Butler's action thriller series?
Gerard Butler returns as Secret Service agent Mike Banning in the third entry of the "Fallen" series, picking up where London Has Fallen left off.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.
We see an aging and sore Banning, struggling with the rigors of his profession, torn between his love for his duty to protect the President and the smart, semi-retirement position as Secret Service Director.
This takes a little while to get going compared to most films in the genre, but it isn't too long before everything goes sideways and Banning finds himself on the run from everyone, framed for something we all know he didn't do. The question is: who did it?
Drawing obvious inspiration from classic genre entries like Die Hard, as well as more modern offerings like John Wick, Gerard Butler takes on everyone from both sides of the law as he tries to get to the bottom of the conspiracy.
Aside from the slightly slow start, the pacing of this film is spot-on, mixing balls-to-the-wall action with gripping tension - accompanied by a very clever soundtrack that enhances the experience well.
The dialogue feels real and meaningful. There's nothing cheesy, no scene-filling conversations or anything, which is always a genuine concern with this type of film. Everything is done with a purpose.
I think perhaps too much effort was made to make this a 15-certificate (an R-rating for you lovely Americans). It was more for the language than anything. The violence and fighting was well-choreographed, taking the up-close, gritty approach akin to the Bourne movies, but there was nothing here that wouldn't have made the cut for a 12A. I think they gambled with the post-Deadpool debate of having a wider audience for a 12A vs. the "it's a 15, therefore it must be good because kids aren't allowed" appeal. I'm not saying it ruins the movie, I just think it was unnecessary. The aforementioned Deadpool, for example, absolutely wouldn't have worked if it was less than a 15, so I get why they made it the way the did. But with this, it would've been the exact same film either way, so why cut out a sizable portion of cinema-goers?
That being said, I did really, really enjoy this film. Is it predictable? Sadly, yes. That probably isn't THAT shocking of a revelation, as these types of films tend to follow a similar (and usually winning) formula, but I confess to being a little disappointed that I was able to figure out the main antagonist and the overall "big bad" within three minutes of the film starting. However, to this film's credit, this predictability doesn't take away from the experience at all. It's quite honest about what it is from the get-go, and it simply doesn't care. It does what it sets out to do, and it does it very well - better than a lot of similar movies in recent times. As with all films in this genre, people tend to watch them knowing what they're getting themselves in for, so you can just relax, switch off, and enjoy the ride for a couple of hours.
I can't sign off without mentioning Nick Nolte's turn as Butler's father. His performance, while not surprising, feels almost out-of-place, as it's so damn good he deserves an Oscar nod. He probably won't get one, as films like this tend not to get noticed by the Academy, but let me tell you, he steals every scene he's in, and you feel every word he says. There's an obvious comparison to the character he portrayed in Warrior, alongside Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton. While he gets nowhere near as much screen time here, he makes the most of what he does get, and it truly is the stand-out performance of the year so far, by a long way.
This film is a solid 7/10, and I highly recommend it. I bumped it to an 8/10 because of Nick Nolte. If I could go back and just watch his scenes again, I would. Grab the popcorn, forget about the outside world... you could do a lot worse at the cinema right now than this.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Battle: Los Angeles (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
War movies depicting a group of soldiers against overwhelming odds are nothing new. For generations, moviegoers have been treated to cinematic recreations as well as new scenarios of fighting units in combat. Usually these films follow a typical formula that includes the tough and gritty commanding officer, the naïve new soldier, the one with a woman and children waiting at home, and one who has difficulties with combat. In the new movie Battle: Los Angeles a new twist is given to the formulaic troops-in-combat picture which produces a mixed bag of results.
Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz; a 20 year Marine who, after losing men on a recent mission, has decided that it is time for him to leave and has filed his retirement paperwork from the corps. While completing a training exercise, Nantz and a squadron of Marines at Camp Pendleton are activated for what they are told is an evacuation mission in order to clear Santa Monica and other area residents from a swarm of meteors which are scheduled to hit just off the coast.
Nantz is assigned to a new commanding officer who, like the men in his unit, is wary of Nantz as many believe that he got his men killed in his last assignment. Despite the misgivings of the new lieutenant, he agrees that Nantz offers a wealth of experience and should be just fine for a simple evacuation assignment.
However during the mission briefing, the Marines are informed that the meteors that are hitting off the coast of major cities around the world contain metallic centers and that this is very likely an invasion from an unknown force. While the Marines are deploying an otherworldly fighting unit emerges destroying everything in their path as they moved inland from the coast line. Unsure what they are dealing with, the military decides to carpet bomb the city in order to contain the alien threat and give Nantz and his unit three hours to enter the combat zone and evacuate civilians from a police station.
While the movie is for the most part the standard soldiers-at-war film which substitute’s aliens for the usual enemy forces, the strength of the cast and the solid action and special effects help the movie overcome many of its shortcomings. There is little character development in the film and scenarios that were introduced in some of the characters’ backstories early in the film were given little to no chance to develop once the shooting started.
I also had an issue with some of the tactics in the film. While it may seem nitpicking there were a few scenes where the soldiers didn’t follow logical courses of engagement until later in the film. I have had only the most basic of combat instruction from my brief time in the Air Force, yet I can think of at least four scenarios in the film where the unit failed to use the most logical options available in their combat situation. Of course any film dealing with an alien invasion is sure to have plot holes and yes I can quibble about the Air Force waiting three hours to bomb a heavily overrun area when containment would have been priority one in not allowing a hostile force that much time to entrench itself.
That being said it was an interesting and entertaining film. The enemy was sufficiently mysterious and dangerous enough to hold my interest and had me rooting desperately for the troops to rise up and strike back at the enemy. Michelle Rodriguez does fine supporting work in the role of an Air Force Tech Sgt. who may have the key to turning the tide of the battle. Eckhart is solid as the gruff but caring staff sergeant is equally strong and his unit of young corporals, including R&B singer Ne-Yo, are believable.
Director Jonathan Liebesman knows the core intention of this film is and in doing so provides enough action to keep the audience entertained throughout. despite some issues with pacing and plot. While it doesn’t have the epic feel of Independence Day, Battle: Los Angeles is a film that provides enough entertainment to make it one of the better alien invasion films ever made and one that I certainly would not mind seeing revisited in a future sequel.
3.5 stars out of 5
Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz; a 20 year Marine who, after losing men on a recent mission, has decided that it is time for him to leave and has filed his retirement paperwork from the corps. While completing a training exercise, Nantz and a squadron of Marines at Camp Pendleton are activated for what they are told is an evacuation mission in order to clear Santa Monica and other area residents from a swarm of meteors which are scheduled to hit just off the coast.
Nantz is assigned to a new commanding officer who, like the men in his unit, is wary of Nantz as many believe that he got his men killed in his last assignment. Despite the misgivings of the new lieutenant, he agrees that Nantz offers a wealth of experience and should be just fine for a simple evacuation assignment.
However during the mission briefing, the Marines are informed that the meteors that are hitting off the coast of major cities around the world contain metallic centers and that this is very likely an invasion from an unknown force. While the Marines are deploying an otherworldly fighting unit emerges destroying everything in their path as they moved inland from the coast line. Unsure what they are dealing with, the military decides to carpet bomb the city in order to contain the alien threat and give Nantz and his unit three hours to enter the combat zone and evacuate civilians from a police station.
While the movie is for the most part the standard soldiers-at-war film which substitute’s aliens for the usual enemy forces, the strength of the cast and the solid action and special effects help the movie overcome many of its shortcomings. There is little character development in the film and scenarios that were introduced in some of the characters’ backstories early in the film were given little to no chance to develop once the shooting started.
I also had an issue with some of the tactics in the film. While it may seem nitpicking there were a few scenes where the soldiers didn’t follow logical courses of engagement until later in the film. I have had only the most basic of combat instruction from my brief time in the Air Force, yet I can think of at least four scenarios in the film where the unit failed to use the most logical options available in their combat situation. Of course any film dealing with an alien invasion is sure to have plot holes and yes I can quibble about the Air Force waiting three hours to bomb a heavily overrun area when containment would have been priority one in not allowing a hostile force that much time to entrench itself.
That being said it was an interesting and entertaining film. The enemy was sufficiently mysterious and dangerous enough to hold my interest and had me rooting desperately for the troops to rise up and strike back at the enemy. Michelle Rodriguez does fine supporting work in the role of an Air Force Tech Sgt. who may have the key to turning the tide of the battle. Eckhart is solid as the gruff but caring staff sergeant is equally strong and his unit of young corporals, including R&B singer Ne-Yo, are believable.
Director Jonathan Liebesman knows the core intention of this film is and in doing so provides enough action to keep the audience entertained throughout. despite some issues with pacing and plot. While it doesn’t have the epic feel of Independence Day, Battle: Los Angeles is a film that provides enough entertainment to make it one of the better alien invasion films ever made and one that I certainly would not mind seeing revisited in a future sequel.
3.5 stars out of 5