Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Extraction (2020) in Movies
May 6, 2020
Fun, by-the-book, action flick
I'm pretty sure that no matter what, I was going to enjoy the Chris Hemsworth action flick EXTRACTION whether it was good or not. It is, after all, a NEW movie, albeit one that was made "Direct to Netflix", so those can be of lesser quality.
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 15, 2021
Much like the recent Justice League redo we have Suicide Squad... sorry, The Suicide Squad.
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Vacation without Aggravation.”
The “Green Book” was a handbook (now, thankfully, out of print) for blacks travelling in the southern states of the US , who want to stay in or dine in places they will be welcomed rather than abused. It is of course 1962 and Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General has racial equality strongly in his firing line.
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
The ever-flexible (and here, after piling a lot of weight on, almost unrecognisable) Viggo Mortensen plays Tony ‘Lip’ Vallelonga – a racist Italian-American living in The Bronx and working as a bouncer at “The Copacabana” club. Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali plays Dr Don Shirley – a black virtuoso pianist of high acclaim. How this odd couple meet and interact on a journey from Titsburg (sic) to Birmingham is the heart of the film.
I’m actually loathe to say ANY more about the plot of this film. I saw this at a Cineworld “Secret Screening” and so went into the film completely blind about the content: which was just BRILLIANT! For this, for me, is as near a perfect road-movie as I am likely to see this or any other decade. To say it is a feelgood Christmas classic to approach “It’s a Wonderful Life” is not – I think – putting it too strongly.
Oh… dammit… I’ve already given away my rating haven’t I….?
The turns
The film has apparently had Oscar buzz since winning the Toronto Film Festival’s “People’s Choice” award, and the chemistry that builds up between Ali and Mortensen is just fantastic. While I’m a fan of Mortensen (“Captain Fantastic” was a minor classic), it is Ali’s performance as the gentle and mannered Shirley which impresses most, and would be my pick for the Oscar nomination if I had to choose between them.
Also truly impressive is ER’s Linda Cardllini as Tony’s wife Dolores: her reactions to “Tony’s” letters home are just exquisite. I wonder whether a Supporting Actress nomination might be deserved here also.
And what a script
The screenplay by Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga (Tony’s son…. yes, this is based on a true story), sizzles with fantastic one-liners and wordplay. It breathes life into the 1962 setting by not shying away from using what, today, are highly offensive racial slurs: these might offend some, but they are essential for a film that lampoons racist behaviour so wonderfully.
Above all, it’s a film with genuine heart. A story that lifts the spirit and paints onto the screen in technicolour glory the struggle (albeit you feel a rather sanitised one) that lifted America out of the dark ages in terms of equality.
It is perhaps this degree of “Oscar baitedness” – (if that’s not a word then it is now) – that might be its biggest weakness in garnering support among the voters at Oscar time. It is though perhaps worth bearing in mind that it was “Driving Miss Daisy” – an odd-couple inter-racial chauffeur-based movie – that won the Best Film Oscar for 1989!
Farrelly? What THAT Farrelly?
This is a film of subtlety and nuance that makes it all the more surprising that the director is Peter Farrelly. Yes, he of the Farrelly brothers of such crass, unsubtle and hilarious films like “There’s Something about Mary” and “Dumb and Dumber” and such crass, unsubtle and totally awful films like “Me, Myself and Irene” and “Dumb and Dumber To”! It’s like asking Mr Bean to direct a performance of Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House! Yet, here it just plain works. The comedy injected into the film (and there are a number of times I laughed out loud) is perfectly balanced with the story.
Final thoughts
What I wanted to say here was:
“Go see this film. No, REALLY. It will leave you with a warm Christmas glow in your heart to last you through the holidays. Well, it should – it did me.”
However, although the States already had this for Thanksgiving, it looks as if the UK general release of this film is not set to happen until the 1st of February next year. Which is a great shame and a missed opportunity. (It’s as if they made a Christmas film like “Die Hard” and then released it in July! #sarcasm #yesiknowtheydid).
I really hope that’s a mistake and you guys can get to see it before then. When you can, go see it (No, REALLY!). Seldom have two hours flown by with such joy at the cinema. At this late stage in the year, my “Films of the Year” draft list is going to need another shake up!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Adrift (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hurricane Raymond has been upgraded to a category 5”
“Should we be worried” says Tami. Well, yes dear, you really should.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wind River (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Survive or Surrender.
Of all of the movie released I missed during 2016 (typically due to work commitments) this one was one near the top of my list. I’m a fan of both Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen, and the setting and story to this one really appealed.
And now I’ve caught up with it, I am not disappointed… certainly one that would have muscled its way well into my top 20 of last year.
Wind River is an Indian reservation in Wyoming (although its filmed in Utah). Natalie (Kelsey Asbille), a young Indian teen, is found in the snow raped and murdered by local tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner, “Arrival“, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“). The local police, led by Ben (Graham Greene), are surprised when a passionate but naive young FBI officer – Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen, “Avengers: Age of Ultron“) – arrives out of a blizzard without remotely sensible clothing. So begins an investigation into who committed the crime, where local knowledge and skills are more applicable than all the CSI-knowhow in the world.
Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) and Ben (Graham Greene) get to work.
This film is everything “The Snowman” should have been and wasn’t. At its heart, there are some memorable relationships established. Gil Birmingham (so good as Jeff Bridges’ right-hand man in “Hell or High Water“) plays Natalie’s dad, grieving and railing against all outsiders other than Cory, who he has a deep and close relationship with. For Cory has a back-story that goes beyond just him marrying into (and now separated from) Wilma (Julia Jones), a woman from the reservation.
Cowboys and Indians. Cory (Jeremy Renner) and Martin (Gil Birmingham) having a deep and moving discussion.
Cory himself has a role that is deep and multi-layered, and Renner is the perfect choice for it (although many scenes could have been cut and spliced into this from his – I thought really strong – Bourne spin-off “The Bourne Legacy”!). Here he has both action scenes and raw emotional scenes to tackle, and although perhaps he doesn’t quite pull off the latter to perfection, he comes pretty close.
“Do you wanna build a snowman?”. Cory is about to make a grim discovery.
Elizabeth Olsen – who seriously deserves more meaty roles like this – plays a ‘flibbertigibbet’ girl (there’s an old word that needs more airtime!) who turns out to have real internal steel. Yet another admirable female role model. #She-do!
The film also paints a vivid and intolerable picture of the dead-end nature of reservation life for many, with poor decisions as a teen (and we’ve all made those) here not being forgiven for the rest of your life.
Written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, who also wrote “Sicario“, “Hell or High Water” and the soon to appear Sicario sequel, “Soldado”, pens some fine and memorable dialogue. “Shouldn’t we wait for some backup?” asks Banner. Ben replies “This isn’t the land of backup. This is the land of you’re on your own”. It’s a film with useful tips as well, like NEVER, EVER go for a run in seriously sub-zero temperatures! (As I’m penning this review in sub-zero Canada at the moment, this is timely advice. #skiptheruntoday.) Sheridan won a Cannes Film Festival award as director for this, but arguably it’s a shame the script has been largely overlooked for the major awards so far.
And that land is one of the stars of the film as well. Filmed around the town of Park City in Utah, it’s gloriously snowy countryside with impressive mountain scenery.
Bleak but impressive, Utah is one of the stars.
My only quibble with the movie is that there are some elements of the plot that don’t quite gel properly. At various times, the heavens open and it buckets down – and I mean buckets down – with snow that must add inches to the landscape in minutes. And yet Cory can still point out tracks in the snow that were made days before? Huh? Also (without spoilers) some elements of communications are also conveniently unreliable when they need to be.
Will this be for everyone? While I commented that the excellent “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing.Missouri” (which shares similar background subject matter) did NOT have flashback scenes to the rape, this film does go there, and so might be upsetting for some viewers.
Girl in Trouble. Kelsey Asbille plays the victim Natalie.
But it’s a high-class, intelligent crime thriller that takes “Mexican standoff” to a whole new level. Recommended.
And now I’ve caught up with it, I am not disappointed… certainly one that would have muscled its way well into my top 20 of last year.
Wind River is an Indian reservation in Wyoming (although its filmed in Utah). Natalie (Kelsey Asbille), a young Indian teen, is found in the snow raped and murdered by local tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner, “Arrival“, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“). The local police, led by Ben (Graham Greene), are surprised when a passionate but naive young FBI officer – Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen, “Avengers: Age of Ultron“) – arrives out of a blizzard without remotely sensible clothing. So begins an investigation into who committed the crime, where local knowledge and skills are more applicable than all the CSI-knowhow in the world.
Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) and Ben (Graham Greene) get to work.
This film is everything “The Snowman” should have been and wasn’t. At its heart, there are some memorable relationships established. Gil Birmingham (so good as Jeff Bridges’ right-hand man in “Hell or High Water“) plays Natalie’s dad, grieving and railing against all outsiders other than Cory, who he has a deep and close relationship with. For Cory has a back-story that goes beyond just him marrying into (and now separated from) Wilma (Julia Jones), a woman from the reservation.
Cowboys and Indians. Cory (Jeremy Renner) and Martin (Gil Birmingham) having a deep and moving discussion.
Cory himself has a role that is deep and multi-layered, and Renner is the perfect choice for it (although many scenes could have been cut and spliced into this from his – I thought really strong – Bourne spin-off “The Bourne Legacy”!). Here he has both action scenes and raw emotional scenes to tackle, and although perhaps he doesn’t quite pull off the latter to perfection, he comes pretty close.
“Do you wanna build a snowman?”. Cory is about to make a grim discovery.
Elizabeth Olsen – who seriously deserves more meaty roles like this – plays a ‘flibbertigibbet’ girl (there’s an old word that needs more airtime!) who turns out to have real internal steel. Yet another admirable female role model. #She-do!
The film also paints a vivid and intolerable picture of the dead-end nature of reservation life for many, with poor decisions as a teen (and we’ve all made those) here not being forgiven for the rest of your life.
Written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, who also wrote “Sicario“, “Hell or High Water” and the soon to appear Sicario sequel, “Soldado”, pens some fine and memorable dialogue. “Shouldn’t we wait for some backup?” asks Banner. Ben replies “This isn’t the land of backup. This is the land of you’re on your own”. It’s a film with useful tips as well, like NEVER, EVER go for a run in seriously sub-zero temperatures! (As I’m penning this review in sub-zero Canada at the moment, this is timely advice. #skiptheruntoday.) Sheridan won a Cannes Film Festival award as director for this, but arguably it’s a shame the script has been largely overlooked for the major awards so far.
And that land is one of the stars of the film as well. Filmed around the town of Park City in Utah, it’s gloriously snowy countryside with impressive mountain scenery.
Bleak but impressive, Utah is one of the stars.
My only quibble with the movie is that there are some elements of the plot that don’t quite gel properly. At various times, the heavens open and it buckets down – and I mean buckets down – with snow that must add inches to the landscape in minutes. And yet Cory can still point out tracks in the snow that were made days before? Huh? Also (without spoilers) some elements of communications are also conveniently unreliable when they need to be.
Will this be for everyone? While I commented that the excellent “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing.Missouri” (which shares similar background subject matter) did NOT have flashback scenes to the rape, this film does go there, and so might be upsetting for some viewers.
Girl in Trouble. Kelsey Asbille plays the victim Natalie.
But it’s a high-class, intelligent crime thriller that takes “Mexican standoff” to a whole new level. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Vaughn and Golding cross the pond to deliver more of the same.
You would probably need to be living under a rock not to know that “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” is the follow-up film to Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman’s highly successful 2015 offering “Kingsman: The Secret Service”: a raucous, violent and rude entry into the spy-caper genre. And the sequel is more of the same: why mess with a crowd-pleasing formula?
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Just Cause 3 in Video Games
Jul 20, 2017
Terrible dialogue (1 more)
Excruciatingly long loading screens
Into the fire, or just a flash in the pan?
I have always been a huge fan of the Just Cause games, I played the hell out of the first one on PS2 and I have great memories of it and of being blown away by the sheer scope and beauty of the game’s environment. Then the follow up was even crazier and even more fun. The explosions were bigger, the characters were more bombastic, the map was massive and the game was amazing. So, I think it’s fair to say I had been fairly excited for a while for the series’ third entry. Unfortunately, as has been the case with a number of big AAA games released in 2015, it is a disappointment. It’s not a bad game by any standard, it just fails to improve on it’s predecessors in any way. When I’m weighing up my opinion on a game, the first thing I always ask myself is, is it fun? And is Just Cause 3 a fun game? Hell yes it is. The explosions feel and look just as good as you would hope they would and the addition of the wingsuit is awesome. Flying around the map like a superhero feels truly epic, it really does give you a sense of being Godlike and it is without doubt the highlight of the game’s new mechanics. However, when you take those two things away, the wingsuit and the explosions, all that is left is a very mediocre third person shooter with mediocre graphics and a cheesy, poorly written script read by voice actors playing uninteresting stereotypes. But hey, this is a Just Cause game, it isn’t exactly known for it’s reputation of telling deep stories about the evolution of a certain character’s psyche, this is the game where you ride missiles and grapple launch into a man with a dropkick, so as long as the fundamental Just Cause functions are present, then surely that’s all that matters. Then you run into the problem with loading times. Now I don’t actually mind games with long load times all that much, within reason, but Just Cause is the type of game where it gives you so many insane mechanics that you naturally feel the need to experiment, but sometimes these experiments end up in Rico’s violent death, which in turn results in another long load screen. After four or five times of this happening within the space of a single mission, the frustration is at boiling point and the game becomes a chore and any fun you were having is quickly lost. It’s as if the game actually punishes you for trying crazy things, yet it claims to be the game that encourages insanity! Also the ways in which you die are so inconsistent that they become massively unpredictable. For example, after dying 3 or 4 times while trying to liberate a base using a madman zipline/parachute combination technique, I finally decided to just play it safe and get the liberation over and done with, so I used a missile mounted chopper. I blew up a bunch of fuel tanks etc and then a couple of SAM’s blew some holes in my chopper, most of the time the game gives you a minute to jump out of the chopper before it explodes, but sometimes at random, it will just blow up instantly and kill you dead, leaving you with another 5 minute loading screen and even more despair. Also Rico can sometimes take fall damage of up to a good few hundred feet, but sometimes a small drop from a roof to the ground of a bungalow will kill him instantly. This wouldn’t be so much of a problem if it wasn’t coupled with long ass load times, which is what really makes the process excruciating. Like I said before, I don’t mind long load screens all that much, but when they are coupled with frequent random chance instadeath, then I have a problem. There is a website that I use frequently called HowLongToBeat.com and it essentially gives you the average amount of time that it takes to beat a game’s campaign. For Just Cause the website says 15.5 hours to beat, which is about right, but I reckon that if you shorten the load times and fixed the random occurrences of instadeath, you could beat it in 11 or 12 hours. That’s 4 hours of sitting through frustrating load screens that you are never going to get back.
It really sucks actually, I wanted to love this game so much and it’s done it’s damndest to prevent me from doing so. To put it bluntly there are better open world games out there and you won’t have to wait half as long to load them up.
It really sucks actually, I wanted to love this game so much and it’s done it’s damndest to prevent me from doing so. To put it bluntly there are better open world games out there and you won’t have to wait half as long to load them up.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Underrated
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is the third and final installment of the iconoclastic Transformers franchise. By the law of diminishing returns, this should have fallen well below the par from the excellent first outing; well, has it? The answer is a definite no. First off, it's not as good as good as Transformers, lacking much of the comedy and puerile action, but it would be on par with the Revenge Of The Fallen, which is not up to much in many critic's opinions, which was overly smashy, confused and missed some of the pacing of the first.
Dark Of the Moon carries on the tradition of complex back stories, tying in to U.S. Space Race history, this time, right back to 1962 and the inception of the Apollo programme. Here, they postulate that NASA's moon race was purely conceived to get to the Moon first to recover a massive Cybertron based space craft, which had crashed in the Moon after the final battle on the doomed Transformer planet.
At the crash site, Sentinel Prime is discovered and years later, Optimus Prime recovers him, as he was the true leader of the Autobots in their war with the Decepticons. Also, there are a collection of what are referred to as Pillars, very 3D friendly, yet still plausibly so, floating metallic rod styled devices which would play a pivotal role later. Meanwhile, Sam, Shia LaBeouf, has moved on from his Megan Fox girlfriend and has now, somewhat inexplicably, moved in with Victoria Secrets model, though in the film, she's supposed to be some form a P.A., played by the inept Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, which is simply ridiculous. This point is also brought up in the script as his own mother warns him that he would not get so lucky a third time!
The world is has now been invaded by Decepticons and Sam, along with his collection of mis-matched allies and seven remaining Autobots are all that stands between them and total destruction. Sounds like a good setup but with a typical running time 157 minutes, the plot was simply too thin to sustain itself, leading to patchy pacing and moments that begin to plod. I didn't find this to be all that bad but others felt that the word boring would more than a little apt.
You see for me, the pay off of robots beating the hell out of each other and taking the world down with them is worth the wait and the flaws in the narrative, but for others, this will not be the case. Leonard Nimoy's voice portrayal of Sentinel Prime was fine, but the constant need to remind us that it was Mr. Spock wasn't. This culminated in a completely unnecessary piece of dialogue where Sentinel reprises Spock's line from Star Trek II, "...The needs of the many, out way the needs of the few". This was a quote to far in my opinion, certainly when justifying some questionable and immoral acts...
Then there was the 3D, and what 3D it was! This finally proved that a blockbuster can be produced in 3D without sacrificing the cinematography for cynical dimensional gestures. The film looked as I would expect any 2D blockbustering actioner to look, with sweeping aerial action and objects flying towards the audience but the 3D effect only amplified this, and didn't make it. This was well conceived and I take my hats of to them. This is what 3D should look like and it was visually arresting.
Overall, the film provided all the thrills and spills that you would expect from Transformers, with acceptable acting for a film of this genre, with the gross exception of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who should stick to modeling and as acting or even speaking would seem to be light years beyond her. John Malkovich and Frances McDormand, deliver great cameos and bring some of the only really decent acting to the film, with the further exceptions of the returning John Turturro and the addition of Alan Tudyk, who both deliver most of the belly laughs in this outing.
It was fun but not as much fun as the previous films. DOTM was clearly trying to shift the tone and in doing so it succeeded at moving the film into a slightly darker, more action film place. This felt more like a straight forward 12 rated actioner such as Bay's other efforts, The Rock and Armageddon and a little less of the lighter more child friendly overtones of the previous two. Still, I enjoyed this and feel very strongly that the naysayers who would rate this film so lowly that you'd have to look for it in the gutter, have allowed themselves to take this way too seriously.
Is this the end of for Transformers? I hope so, but the door is still open and with the vast profits that it's already made, Transformers 4 could be just around the next corner. If that's the case, it is not what i would prefer, feeling that they've gone as far as they came but I would certainly run out to watch it!
Dark Of the Moon carries on the tradition of complex back stories, tying in to U.S. Space Race history, this time, right back to 1962 and the inception of the Apollo programme. Here, they postulate that NASA's moon race was purely conceived to get to the Moon first to recover a massive Cybertron based space craft, which had crashed in the Moon after the final battle on the doomed Transformer planet.
At the crash site, Sentinel Prime is discovered and years later, Optimus Prime recovers him, as he was the true leader of the Autobots in their war with the Decepticons. Also, there are a collection of what are referred to as Pillars, very 3D friendly, yet still plausibly so, floating metallic rod styled devices which would play a pivotal role later. Meanwhile, Sam, Shia LaBeouf, has moved on from his Megan Fox girlfriend and has now, somewhat inexplicably, moved in with Victoria Secrets model, though in the film, she's supposed to be some form a P.A., played by the inept Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, which is simply ridiculous. This point is also brought up in the script as his own mother warns him that he would not get so lucky a third time!
The world is has now been invaded by Decepticons and Sam, along with his collection of mis-matched allies and seven remaining Autobots are all that stands between them and total destruction. Sounds like a good setup but with a typical running time 157 minutes, the plot was simply too thin to sustain itself, leading to patchy pacing and moments that begin to plod. I didn't find this to be all that bad but others felt that the word boring would more than a little apt.
You see for me, the pay off of robots beating the hell out of each other and taking the world down with them is worth the wait and the flaws in the narrative, but for others, this will not be the case. Leonard Nimoy's voice portrayal of Sentinel Prime was fine, but the constant need to remind us that it was Mr. Spock wasn't. This culminated in a completely unnecessary piece of dialogue where Sentinel reprises Spock's line from Star Trek II, "...The needs of the many, out way the needs of the few". This was a quote to far in my opinion, certainly when justifying some questionable and immoral acts...
Then there was the 3D, and what 3D it was! This finally proved that a blockbuster can be produced in 3D without sacrificing the cinematography for cynical dimensional gestures. The film looked as I would expect any 2D blockbustering actioner to look, with sweeping aerial action and objects flying towards the audience but the 3D effect only amplified this, and didn't make it. This was well conceived and I take my hats of to them. This is what 3D should look like and it was visually arresting.
Overall, the film provided all the thrills and spills that you would expect from Transformers, with acceptable acting for a film of this genre, with the gross exception of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who should stick to modeling and as acting or even speaking would seem to be light years beyond her. John Malkovich and Frances McDormand, deliver great cameos and bring some of the only really decent acting to the film, with the further exceptions of the returning John Turturro and the addition of Alan Tudyk, who both deliver most of the belly laughs in this outing.
It was fun but not as much fun as the previous films. DOTM was clearly trying to shift the tone and in doing so it succeeded at moving the film into a slightly darker, more action film place. This felt more like a straight forward 12 rated actioner such as Bay's other efforts, The Rock and Armageddon and a little less of the lighter more child friendly overtones of the previous two. Still, I enjoyed this and feel very strongly that the naysayers who would rate this film so lowly that you'd have to look for it in the gutter, have allowed themselves to take this way too seriously.
Is this the end of for Transformers? I hope so, but the door is still open and with the vast profits that it's already made, Transformers 4 could be just around the next corner. If that's the case, it is not what i would prefer, feeling that they've gone as far as they came but I would certainly run out to watch it!