Search
Beyond Cold Blood: The KBI from Ma Barker to BTK
Book
Ma Barker and Pretty Boy Floyd once shot their way across the state, and Bonnie and Clyde were known...
JT (287 KP) rated The Sweeney (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Nick Love’s take on the ’70s TV cop show of the same name packs every bit a hard knuckled punch as you would expect it to. The director of such films as The Football Factory and The Business even manages to stay clear of Danny Dyer and cast a slick and talented bunch of individuals, led by Ray Winstone.
Regan (Winstone) and Carter (Drew) are a pair of detectives on the flying squad, they don’t play nice or appreciate authority and when it comes to nicking thieves they go in armed with an array of unique weapons including pick axe handles. Quite simply put they “do the things you can only dream of”.
The plot is a little thin on the ground at times, and centres on former villain Allen (Paul Anderson) making a return to Regan’s patch, of which he doesn’t take too kindly when he has to let Allen go after having pulled him in for questioning in relation to a bank job that ends with an execution.
Regan himself is under the watchful eye of not just his boss Frank Haskins (Damian Lewis) but internal watchdog Ivan Lewis (Steven Mackintosh) who has a greater reason than anyone to note Regan’s movements, with Regan sharing more than coffee with Lewis’s wife Nancy.
The action is well choreographed from the opening heist to a shootout through Trafalgar Square (of which annoyingly they can only hit innocent bystanders), the film’s climactic car chase is a bit of a let down however. After all that proceeded before it I was expecting something a little better than a blast around a caravan park.
The chemistry between Regan and Carter is good, a father and son styled relationship is pushed to breaking point at times, but beneath the hardened exterior lies a mutual respect for each other that is followed through to the very end.
Winstone looks battle weary and sounds more cockney than ever (if that could be at all possible), he’s like a bulldog that won’t let go of a bone or come when called. Drew is a fresh casting choice and I enjoyed his performance in Harry Brown, but here he seems to deliver his lines in a slow and laborious manner.
The sweeping landscape of London is painted in cold grey light, panels of sun laying across pavements and car windows trying to brighten the mood. It’s a violent mood, twinned with colourful dialogue that is more than to be expected. It’s a decent enough effort and certainly Love’s best film to date.
Regan (Winstone) and Carter (Drew) are a pair of detectives on the flying squad, they don’t play nice or appreciate authority and when it comes to nicking thieves they go in armed with an array of unique weapons including pick axe handles. Quite simply put they “do the things you can only dream of”.
The plot is a little thin on the ground at times, and centres on former villain Allen (Paul Anderson) making a return to Regan’s patch, of which he doesn’t take too kindly when he has to let Allen go after having pulled him in for questioning in relation to a bank job that ends with an execution.
Regan himself is under the watchful eye of not just his boss Frank Haskins (Damian Lewis) but internal watchdog Ivan Lewis (Steven Mackintosh) who has a greater reason than anyone to note Regan’s movements, with Regan sharing more than coffee with Lewis’s wife Nancy.
The action is well choreographed from the opening heist to a shootout through Trafalgar Square (of which annoyingly they can only hit innocent bystanders), the film’s climactic car chase is a bit of a let down however. After all that proceeded before it I was expecting something a little better than a blast around a caravan park.
The chemistry between Regan and Carter is good, a father and son styled relationship is pushed to breaking point at times, but beneath the hardened exterior lies a mutual respect for each other that is followed through to the very end.
Winstone looks battle weary and sounds more cockney than ever (if that could be at all possible), he’s like a bulldog that won’t let go of a bone or come when called. Drew is a fresh casting choice and I enjoyed his performance in Harry Brown, but here he seems to deliver his lines in a slow and laborious manner.
The sweeping landscape of London is painted in cold grey light, panels of sun laying across pavements and car windows trying to brighten the mood. It’s a violent mood, twinned with colourful dialogue that is more than to be expected. It’s a decent enough effort and certainly Love’s best film to date.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Free Fire (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
At a rundown warehouse in 1970’s Boston, Justine (Brie Larson) and Ord (Armie Hammer) are brokering a deal between a South African arms dealer (Sharlto Copley) and members of the IRA (Cillian Murphy & Michael Smiley). Tensions flare almost immediately between the two sides and an inevitable battle of wills and gunplay ensues when two members of their entourage take decisive action on a fresh grudge from the night before.
It may say Scorsese’s producing, but Free Fire definitely smacks more of a Tarantino-influenced affair and I can think of no better example, in recent years anyway, that proves the lasting legacy of his still awe-inspiring debut, Reservoir Dogs. After years of making deliberately obtuse films (High Rise, A Field in England), Ben Wheatley has finally made something accessible, but unfortunately, Free Fire can’t pack the same visceral punch and narrative competence as the films that it takes influence from. I’m having flashbacks to about this time last year when I reviewed another film from A24, Green Room. I walked out of Free Fire in much the same manner; on a high, feeling satisfied from what appeared to be something unique and notable. As the hours have passed and I’m preparing my summation, the sentiment has all but vanished and I’m wanting of something with a little more substance. Granted, an 90 minute runtime can only accommodate so much, but I have to ask: could all that time spent crawling around in the dust and the rubble, as realistic a light that it may or may not shine on the authenticity of an actual shootout, have been used instead to get inside our characters motivations, driving us to really care about their fates? There’s no doubt that from its style and attitude, there was the potential for this to be the Reservoir Dogs for a new generation, but ultimately it’s just not a very memorable experience.
What will save Free Fire from obscurity is a cast that, despite having little plot to work with, is firing on all cylinders. An exemplary job is done from Oscar winners on down to character actors whose faces you know, but names you don’t. There isn’t one weak link in the chain and their performances have an excellent balance of toughness and levity that grounds them just enough to allow for suspension of disbelief. I might chastise Ben Wheatley as a storyteller, but there’s no doubt that he has an ear for great dialogue and fine judgement on the performers to deliver it.
It may say Scorsese’s producing, but Free Fire definitely smacks more of a Tarantino-influenced affair and I can think of no better example, in recent years anyway, that proves the lasting legacy of his still awe-inspiring debut, Reservoir Dogs. After years of making deliberately obtuse films (High Rise, A Field in England), Ben Wheatley has finally made something accessible, but unfortunately, Free Fire can’t pack the same visceral punch and narrative competence as the films that it takes influence from. I’m having flashbacks to about this time last year when I reviewed another film from A24, Green Room. I walked out of Free Fire in much the same manner; on a high, feeling satisfied from what appeared to be something unique and notable. As the hours have passed and I’m preparing my summation, the sentiment has all but vanished and I’m wanting of something with a little more substance. Granted, an 90 minute runtime can only accommodate so much, but I have to ask: could all that time spent crawling around in the dust and the rubble, as realistic a light that it may or may not shine on the authenticity of an actual shootout, have been used instead to get inside our characters motivations, driving us to really care about their fates? There’s no doubt that from its style and attitude, there was the potential for this to be the Reservoir Dogs for a new generation, but ultimately it’s just not a very memorable experience.
What will save Free Fire from obscurity is a cast that, despite having little plot to work with, is firing on all cylinders. An exemplary job is done from Oscar winners on down to character actors whose faces you know, but names you don’t. There isn’t one weak link in the chain and their performances have an excellent balance of toughness and levity that grounds them just enough to allow for suspension of disbelief. I might chastise Ben Wheatley as a storyteller, but there’s no doubt that he has an ear for great dialogue and fine judgement on the performers to deliver it.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Boondock Saints (1999) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
B is for Bad A**
Contains spoilers, click to show
This entertaining action film opens with aerial views of Boston and narration of the Lord's Prayer on St. Patty's Day. Soon, we are introduced to two Irish brothers, Connor and Murphy MacManus. The terrible twosome work in a meat-packing plant: in their spare time, they slaughter evildoers. What could be better? With their black shirts, black blazers, and blue jeans, the brothers seem like Mormon missionaries gone horribly wrong.
Connor and Murphy (played by Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus), fall into the
profession of murdering bad guys quite by accident. Initially, the fact that they killed a Russian crime lord, and his associate, after a bar fight seems a coincidental act of self-defense. They are hailed, at first, as heroes. They somehow continue to avoid prosecution, though from the beginning they are being pursued by FBI agent Paul Smecker. They start targeting the crime lords on purpose, and they eventually end up being hunted by a more ominous figure, the legendary hitman Il Duce.
Willem Dafoe gets an A for awesome in my book for his performance as FBI agent Paul Smecker. Smecker is a homosexual, and he is not apologetic about it. In fact, he draws attention to his orientation in many scenes. Particularly memorable is the moment where he corrects an officer’s use of the word “symbology” by hissing a pronounced s: “ssssymbolism.” Later in the film, Dafoe even gets the opportunity to use his feminine wiles by dressing in drag, a visual experience which I promise is as disconcerting as it sounds.
The presentation of Smecker’s crime scene explanations was particularly impressive. The crime scene was shown first, and the events that created it unfolded in retrospect as Smecker described the scene. Enhanced by the intensity of the score, Dafoe offered a memorable narration of an epic shootout, during which he resembles an insane conductor.
The writing in this film was great, with witty one-liners throughout to break the tension. There were several moments in the film where one wonders if the brothers’ success is due to dumb luck or divinity. The MacManus twins certainly seem to believe that their cause is a righteous one.
I must also acknowledge the score, by Jeff Danna, which beautifully compliments the opening sequence and the rest of the film. The score even includes a variation of a hymn, infused with a beat you can dance to.
I love a good revenge film, and this is one for the ages. To sum up my complex feelings about the vigilante-style justice in this film, I must end with a quote by Connor MacManus: "I'm strangely comfortable with it."
Connor and Murphy (played by Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus), fall into the
profession of murdering bad guys quite by accident. Initially, the fact that they killed a Russian crime lord, and his associate, after a bar fight seems a coincidental act of self-defense. They are hailed, at first, as heroes. They somehow continue to avoid prosecution, though from the beginning they are being pursued by FBI agent Paul Smecker. They start targeting the crime lords on purpose, and they eventually end up being hunted by a more ominous figure, the legendary hitman Il Duce.
Willem Dafoe gets an A for awesome in my book for his performance as FBI agent Paul Smecker. Smecker is a homosexual, and he is not apologetic about it. In fact, he draws attention to his orientation in many scenes. Particularly memorable is the moment where he corrects an officer’s use of the word “symbology” by hissing a pronounced s: “ssssymbolism.” Later in the film, Dafoe even gets the opportunity to use his feminine wiles by dressing in drag, a visual experience which I promise is as disconcerting as it sounds.
The presentation of Smecker’s crime scene explanations was particularly impressive. The crime scene was shown first, and the events that created it unfolded in retrospect as Smecker described the scene. Enhanced by the intensity of the score, Dafoe offered a memorable narration of an epic shootout, during which he resembles an insane conductor.
The writing in this film was great, with witty one-liners throughout to break the tension. There were several moments in the film where one wonders if the brothers’ success is due to dumb luck or divinity. The MacManus twins certainly seem to believe that their cause is a righteous one.
I must also acknowledge the score, by Jeff Danna, which beautifully compliments the opening sequence and the rest of the film. The score even includes a variation of a hymn, infused with a beat you can dance to.
I love a good revenge film, and this is one for the ages. To sum up my complex feelings about the vigilante-style justice in this film, I must end with a quote by Connor MacManus: "I'm strangely comfortable with it."
JT (287 KP) rated Contraband (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
This is an action film of epic underrated proportion, director Baltasar Kormákur, who was a producer on the original film Reykjavik-Rotterdam, gives us a good old fashioned heist where you root for the bad guys, or in this case the good guys.
When Chris Faraday (Whalberg) has to help out his brother-in-law Andy, after his attempts at smuggling in drugs for Giovanni Ribisi’s excellent villain go pear shaped, Faraday must go back to his criminal roots in order to save him and his family.
Do you feel lucky?
It certainly isn’t as slick as Ocean’s Eleven but it has a similar impact, in that you are desperate for these guys to succeed and pull off the job, and what a job it is! The heist or smuggle as you want to call it is as elaborate as anything that Danny Ocean himself could have put together, its all just a little rushed and certainly not all that conventional.
Whalberg’s crew, a band of misfits, all work on board a container ship heading to Panama where they will pick up a van and fill it with counterfeit bank notes, a plan which would seem simple enough. They’ve even gone to great lengths to make sure the ship stays in port long enough for them to get the job done.
Of course it doesn’t all go to plan, and in the mean time Briggs (Ribisi) is terrorizing Faraday’s wife Kate (Beckinsale) and his family. Andy still manages to try and pull off (and f*** up) his own job mid way through, and Faraday’s best friend Sebastian (Foster) has a little more about him that meets the eye.
The plot has a distinct Gone in 60 Seconds feel to it, with a relative coming to the aid of another family member which results in them racing against time to pay off the bad guys. The action is OK, an elaborate car chase and shootout is probably the most notable sequence, while the rest of the time we watch and wait as Faraday plans the heist.
I enjoyed this quite a lot, its a format that I find if done right works well which in this case it was. Ribisi was a standout for me, not just in his mannerisms as a psycho drug lord but his voice and look about him made me think he put some real effort into this role. Wahlberg is an action hero at the end of the day and here, he is out doing what he does best, Beckinsale is left out in the cold a bit but as a supporting role she does alright.
When Chris Faraday (Whalberg) has to help out his brother-in-law Andy, after his attempts at smuggling in drugs for Giovanni Ribisi’s excellent villain go pear shaped, Faraday must go back to his criminal roots in order to save him and his family.
Do you feel lucky?
It certainly isn’t as slick as Ocean’s Eleven but it has a similar impact, in that you are desperate for these guys to succeed and pull off the job, and what a job it is! The heist or smuggle as you want to call it is as elaborate as anything that Danny Ocean himself could have put together, its all just a little rushed and certainly not all that conventional.
Whalberg’s crew, a band of misfits, all work on board a container ship heading to Panama where they will pick up a van and fill it with counterfeit bank notes, a plan which would seem simple enough. They’ve even gone to great lengths to make sure the ship stays in port long enough for them to get the job done.
Of course it doesn’t all go to plan, and in the mean time Briggs (Ribisi) is terrorizing Faraday’s wife Kate (Beckinsale) and his family. Andy still manages to try and pull off (and f*** up) his own job mid way through, and Faraday’s best friend Sebastian (Foster) has a little more about him that meets the eye.
The plot has a distinct Gone in 60 Seconds feel to it, with a relative coming to the aid of another family member which results in them racing against time to pay off the bad guys. The action is OK, an elaborate car chase and shootout is probably the most notable sequence, while the rest of the time we watch and wait as Faraday plans the heist.
I enjoyed this quite a lot, its a format that I find if done right works well which in this case it was. Ribisi was a standout for me, not just in his mannerisms as a psycho drug lord but his voice and look about him made me think he put some real effort into this role. Wahlberg is an action hero at the end of the day and here, he is out doing what he does best, Beckinsale is left out in the cold a bit but as a supporting role she does alright.
Texas Poker: Pokerist Pro
Games and Entertainment
App
Play Texas Hold’em Poker free with millions of players from all over the world! Immerse yourself...
Texas Holdem Poker - Pokerist
Games and Entertainment
App
Play Texas Hold’em Poker free with millions of players from all over the world! Immerse yourself...
Jerzy Dudek: A Big Pole in Our Goal - Autobiography
Book
Liverpool Football Club has won trophy after trophy. It has enjoyed success after success....
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Payback (1999) in Movies
Jul 15, 2020
Get Ready To Root For The Bad Guy
Payback- is a intresting revenge action thriller. Maybe its me, but i fell like this movie is boring. Its good, but some what boring, like nothing going on. Also its kinda of confusing, again it might just be me, but i fell like its confusing as well. Like i said before its good, but in the end its both boring and confusing.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Devil's Rejects (2005) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Chinese, Japanese, Dirty knees, look at these!
Shortly after the events of House of 1,000 Corpses, Sheriff Wydell and his band of deputies approach and surround the homestead occupied by everyone's favorite murderous, diabolical, psychotic family. Inside, lazy slumbering quickly turns to mounting a counter offensive when the family realizes what is about to happen. The ensuring shootout claims several victims before the aid of tear gas precedes a law enforcement home invasion. Unfortunately, only one family member is captured while Baby and Otis escape out the back. Baby calls their father, Captain Spaulding, to inform him of the pending doom on his way so he can meet up with them subsequently.
The two siblings arrive at a local motel only to perform their brand of debauchery on two couples and friends staying there. They are forced to be in constant fear for their lives whilst their kidnappers decide what to do with them while waiting on their matriarch. The torture endured by their victims is heinous, cruel and unnecessary, but is their way of life.
The law is tightly on their trail waiting for that lead which will lead them to the felons. This is growing personal for the sheriff as he discovers the "rejects" were responsible for the death of his brother. The sheriff decides to hire some disreputable men of his own to use whatever methods they can to acquire the location of his targets.
The inevitable stand off leaves other casualties and a position it will be difficult for the sheriff to return from. The "rejects" always seem to find a way to survive no matter their degree of peril.
This film takes a different direction than that of House of 1,000 Corpses. That film being more of a standard "teenagers wander into a house of horrors" situation, whereas this film feels more like a "Natural Born Killers" type.
The total lack of any sort of normal human decency for the family is truly revolting and is on display every time they interact with anyone including women and children. They even don't really like each other very much and are constantly arguing with one other; their visceral hatred always right on the edge of bubbling over.
The unspeakable cruelty they enact on their victims can seem excessive at times; however, if you have lived through the events of the first film, you know what you are getting into here. When they are attached to their motel guests, you are just waiting for the next moment of panic when their guests start to figure out exactly what type of monsters they are dealing with.
I loved the gritty look of the film along with the mostly 1970s classic rock soundtrack. The scenery and landscapes of the sparse countryside fit the film well as well.
Not too many sequels build or are as good or better than their predecessor, but this film could be one of those for sure.
The two siblings arrive at a local motel only to perform their brand of debauchery on two couples and friends staying there. They are forced to be in constant fear for their lives whilst their kidnappers decide what to do with them while waiting on their matriarch. The torture endured by their victims is heinous, cruel and unnecessary, but is their way of life.
The law is tightly on their trail waiting for that lead which will lead them to the felons. This is growing personal for the sheriff as he discovers the "rejects" were responsible for the death of his brother. The sheriff decides to hire some disreputable men of his own to use whatever methods they can to acquire the location of his targets.
The inevitable stand off leaves other casualties and a position it will be difficult for the sheriff to return from. The "rejects" always seem to find a way to survive no matter their degree of peril.
This film takes a different direction than that of House of 1,000 Corpses. That film being more of a standard "teenagers wander into a house of horrors" situation, whereas this film feels more like a "Natural Born Killers" type.
The total lack of any sort of normal human decency for the family is truly revolting and is on display every time they interact with anyone including women and children. They even don't really like each other very much and are constantly arguing with one other; their visceral hatred always right on the edge of bubbling over.
The unspeakable cruelty they enact on their victims can seem excessive at times; however, if you have lived through the events of the first film, you know what you are getting into here. When they are attached to their motel guests, you are just waiting for the next moment of panic when their guests start to figure out exactly what type of monsters they are dealing with.
I loved the gritty look of the film along with the mostly 1970s classic rock soundtrack. The scenery and landscapes of the sparse countryside fit the film well as well.
Not too many sequels build or are as good or better than their predecessor, but this film could be one of those for sure.