Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Unhinged (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
The opening credits for Unhinged paint a pretty bleak and horrific snapshot of human life, just to get us in the mood for what’s to come. Footage of actual road rage incidents, supermarket disagreements and brawls, cars crashing into each other, all while recordings of news readers talk about how stressed and angry we all are these days. I think that in the current climate, we can all appreciate just how angry the world seems to have become these last few months, and some of these scenes really hit home.
We’d already seen just how angry Russell Crowe’s character is (billed as ‘The Man’, although he later introduces himself as Tom Cooper), courtesy of a shocking little pre-credits scene. Sitting in his car at night, rain beating down on the car as he breathes heavily and pops some pills into his mouth. Slowly turning a wedding ring on his finger, he removes it, tossing it behind him onto the backseat. Taking a hammer, he gets out of the car and walks to the front door of the house he’d parked outside, before smashing it down and proceeding to use the hammer on the occupants. He’s clearly not the kind of person you want to get on the wrong side of.
The person that does manage to get on his wrong side is Rachel (Caren Pistorius), who’s also having a pretty bad day of her own. Waking up late on the sofa, we learn that she’s currently going through a divorce, with her ex-husband wanting her house. She’s also late in taking her son to school, so when they hit heavy traffic along the way, it’s the last thing she needs.
At some traffic lights, the large SUV she’s sitting behind doesn’t budge when the lights turn green, so Rachel lets out a series of long beeps on the horn, before eventually pulling around the SUV to continue on her way. Unfortunately for her though, when they hit more traffic further down the road, the SUV pulls up alongside her, and when the window rolls down, we see that it’s ‘The Man’ behind the wheel. He’s calm at first, if a little on edge, but after apologising for his mistake, demands the same from Rachel before they go their separate ways. Unfortunately though, Rachel isn’t prepared to offer an apology. “I need you to learn what a bad day is and I need you to learn how to say sorry” he growls, before Rachel pulls away, believing that to be the end of it.
What follows is an intense game of cat and mouse, as ‘The Man’ relentlessly stalks Rachel through the roads and highways. Just to make things worse, ‘The Man’ manages to get hold of Rachel’s phone and starts to threaten and target her close friends and family. We’ve already seen just how Unhinged he can be, and there’s more of that as the movie progresses and he gets a chance to carry out some of those threats. He’s not just out to kill Rachel, but to give her the worst possible day he can before that moment arrives.
Crowe is suitably menacing – overweight and sweaty, taking out anyone who gets in his way and methodical in his determination to catch Rachel. The movie does try to humanise him a little at times though, as we discover that he’s been through a relationship breakdown, and was laid off work just a few weeks short of retiring, as if trying to provide some justification for his behaviour.
Unhinged comes in at just over 90 minutes and proved to be a real intense, gut wrenching roller-coaster ride. I don’t know if I was just a bit giddy at being back in the cinema for the first time since March, but I found it to be a lot of fun.
We’d already seen just how angry Russell Crowe’s character is (billed as ‘The Man’, although he later introduces himself as Tom Cooper), courtesy of a shocking little pre-credits scene. Sitting in his car at night, rain beating down on the car as he breathes heavily and pops some pills into his mouth. Slowly turning a wedding ring on his finger, he removes it, tossing it behind him onto the backseat. Taking a hammer, he gets out of the car and walks to the front door of the house he’d parked outside, before smashing it down and proceeding to use the hammer on the occupants. He’s clearly not the kind of person you want to get on the wrong side of.
The person that does manage to get on his wrong side is Rachel (Caren Pistorius), who’s also having a pretty bad day of her own. Waking up late on the sofa, we learn that she’s currently going through a divorce, with her ex-husband wanting her house. She’s also late in taking her son to school, so when they hit heavy traffic along the way, it’s the last thing she needs.
At some traffic lights, the large SUV she’s sitting behind doesn’t budge when the lights turn green, so Rachel lets out a series of long beeps on the horn, before eventually pulling around the SUV to continue on her way. Unfortunately for her though, when they hit more traffic further down the road, the SUV pulls up alongside her, and when the window rolls down, we see that it’s ‘The Man’ behind the wheel. He’s calm at first, if a little on edge, but after apologising for his mistake, demands the same from Rachel before they go their separate ways. Unfortunately though, Rachel isn’t prepared to offer an apology. “I need you to learn what a bad day is and I need you to learn how to say sorry” he growls, before Rachel pulls away, believing that to be the end of it.
What follows is an intense game of cat and mouse, as ‘The Man’ relentlessly stalks Rachel through the roads and highways. Just to make things worse, ‘The Man’ manages to get hold of Rachel’s phone and starts to threaten and target her close friends and family. We’ve already seen just how Unhinged he can be, and there’s more of that as the movie progresses and he gets a chance to carry out some of those threats. He’s not just out to kill Rachel, but to give her the worst possible day he can before that moment arrives.
Crowe is suitably menacing – overweight and sweaty, taking out anyone who gets in his way and methodical in his determination to catch Rachel. The movie does try to humanise him a little at times though, as we discover that he’s been through a relationship breakdown, and was laid off work just a few weeks short of retiring, as if trying to provide some justification for his behaviour.
Unhinged comes in at just over 90 minutes and proved to be a real intense, gut wrenching roller-coaster ride. I don’t know if I was just a bit giddy at being back in the cinema for the first time since March, but I found it to be a lot of fun.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Me Before You (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You are scored on my heart Clark”
“Me Before You” is a bit of a queer fish of a movie. It never quite decides whether it wants to be a romantic weepy, a drama, or a rom-com and as such ends up rather falling between all three stools.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Impressive Cast & Visuals Are Not Enough When Compared To The First Film's Magical Story
Contains spoilers, click to show
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unknown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc..
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unkown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc.. I really wanted to give this movie a 7 but I have to give it a 6/10.
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unkown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc.. I really wanted to give this movie a 7 but I have to give it a 6/10.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Finally, a Twilight film that doesn’t have men in the audience going green with envy as they stare at Taylor Lautner’s washboard abs and finally, a Twilight film that doesn’t actually stink.
Of course, those of you familiar with my reviews know that I’m not fond of the Twilight Saga in the slightest, but here I’m prepared to eat my words as newcomer Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) directs a surprisingly enjoyable outing. Unfortunately, it all comes a bit late as this is the penultimate film in Stephanie Meyer’s book series.
Sadly, the Twilight films have never had the critical success of their Harry Potter cousins, probably due to their wooden acting, dire scripting and disappointing special effects, but here, Breaking Dawn Part 1 manages to be at least as good as the first two films of its wizarding counterpart.
The similarities between the two series’ don’t stop there. The decision to split the final book in the Twilight series was probably done because of the success Harry Potter had by splitting the final book into two films.
Here, Bill Condon manages to inject some life into the franchise with good acting, good special effects and finally, a good storyline. Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart) have finally decided to tie the knot. Naturally, Jacob (Taylor Lautner) is less than pleased with this announcement and decides to run away in a fit of rage. Will he be back for the wedding? GASP!
Alas, he makes it and just before Edward whisks Bella on their honeymoon, some pleasantries are exchanged between the bride and the wolf. So, the honeymoon comes and Bella realises she’s pregnant; oh dear. The film then follows her journey to becoming a mother and the growing beast inside her. Thankfully, the point where the film is split doesn’t jar like it did in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and seems to follow a natural ending.
The special effects have also upped their game for the latest instalment as the (still blatantly obvious) CGI werewolves look much more realistic. Also, the acting has improved leaps and bounds with Kristen Stewart being a real highlight. The realisation that motherhood could kill her is fantastically portrayed by Stewart, though the special effects making her look frail probably helped here.
Taylor Lautner is the best out of the male leads and does the role some justice, whilst Robert Pattinson is mediocre as Edward.
There’s still a problem with the films pacing however. It seems that events that would take 10 minutes worth of screen time in other films have to take 30 in the Twilight saga; it’s a major annoyance as it interrupts the flow of the film and the constant close ups of the characters’ faces grate after a while.
Also, Condon has clearly not directed many films that require action scenes. A major fight with the werewolves and the Cullen’s should have been a real highlight, but it’s a sloppily directed sequence with bodies mashing together. You’re unsure as to who is who, a problem which blights the Transformers film series.
Thankfully there are numerous highlights, the shots of Rio are breath-taking and Bella giving birth is truly horrific, you can’t take your eyes of the screen for a second. Also worth a mention is a part where the werewolves are running through the forest and end up in a logging plant. It’s a fabulous sequence that really makes you grip your seat.
The Twlight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 is a good film. It finally makes use of the promising source material it has been blessed with and it’s pleasing to see that a good sense of direction is all it takes to turn around the fortunes of a film series. It’s far from perfect, with sloppy action scenes and terrible pacing, but finally, I left the cinema with a sense of happiness – I’m actually looking forward to part two. (I can’t believe I just said that.)
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/27/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-1-2011/
Of course, those of you familiar with my reviews know that I’m not fond of the Twilight Saga in the slightest, but here I’m prepared to eat my words as newcomer Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) directs a surprisingly enjoyable outing. Unfortunately, it all comes a bit late as this is the penultimate film in Stephanie Meyer’s book series.
Sadly, the Twilight films have never had the critical success of their Harry Potter cousins, probably due to their wooden acting, dire scripting and disappointing special effects, but here, Breaking Dawn Part 1 manages to be at least as good as the first two films of its wizarding counterpart.
The similarities between the two series’ don’t stop there. The decision to split the final book in the Twilight series was probably done because of the success Harry Potter had by splitting the final book into two films.
Here, Bill Condon manages to inject some life into the franchise with good acting, good special effects and finally, a good storyline. Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart) have finally decided to tie the knot. Naturally, Jacob (Taylor Lautner) is less than pleased with this announcement and decides to run away in a fit of rage. Will he be back for the wedding? GASP!
Alas, he makes it and just before Edward whisks Bella on their honeymoon, some pleasantries are exchanged between the bride and the wolf. So, the honeymoon comes and Bella realises she’s pregnant; oh dear. The film then follows her journey to becoming a mother and the growing beast inside her. Thankfully, the point where the film is split doesn’t jar like it did in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and seems to follow a natural ending.
The special effects have also upped their game for the latest instalment as the (still blatantly obvious) CGI werewolves look much more realistic. Also, the acting has improved leaps and bounds with Kristen Stewart being a real highlight. The realisation that motherhood could kill her is fantastically portrayed by Stewart, though the special effects making her look frail probably helped here.
Taylor Lautner is the best out of the male leads and does the role some justice, whilst Robert Pattinson is mediocre as Edward.
There’s still a problem with the films pacing however. It seems that events that would take 10 minutes worth of screen time in other films have to take 30 in the Twilight saga; it’s a major annoyance as it interrupts the flow of the film and the constant close ups of the characters’ faces grate after a while.
Also, Condon has clearly not directed many films that require action scenes. A major fight with the werewolves and the Cullen’s should have been a real highlight, but it’s a sloppily directed sequence with bodies mashing together. You’re unsure as to who is who, a problem which blights the Transformers film series.
Thankfully there are numerous highlights, the shots of Rio are breath-taking and Bella giving birth is truly horrific, you can’t take your eyes of the screen for a second. Also worth a mention is a part where the werewolves are running through the forest and end up in a logging plant. It’s a fabulous sequence that really makes you grip your seat.
The Twlight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 is a good film. It finally makes use of the promising source material it has been blessed with and it’s pleasing to see that a good sense of direction is all it takes to turn around the fortunes of a film series. It’s far from perfect, with sloppy action scenes and terrible pacing, but finally, I left the cinema with a sense of happiness – I’m actually looking forward to part two. (I can’t believe I just said that.)
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/27/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-1-2011/
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Rancher to the Rescue in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review will be on my blog, <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>, at the end of June).
Romances aren't usually my thing, but I like to get out of my comfort zone every now and again. I'm really glad I did though because Rancher to the Rescue by Jennifer Faye was such a sweet read.
Okay, I won't reiterate what the blurb says because it describes what the book is about perfectly (which is a rarity amongst books these days). Just now that with this book, what you see is what you get.
The title describes this book perfectly. It's about a rancher (Cash) saving a celebrity (Meghan). I couldn't think of a better title, so I think Ms. Faye did an excellent job coming up with the title Rancher to the Rescue.
The cover is alright. I've seen worse covers, but I've seen better ones as well. Personally, I would've liked to see more of a ranch scene behind the couple on the cover of the book especially since this takes place at a ranch.
The world building is fantastic. In fact, I don't think I can fault it. Every situation was explained excellently which left me with no questions whatsoever. Even when Meghan is running out on her wedding, I though the author did an excellent job of explaining how she avoided the paparazzi.
The pacing is a bit hit and miss throughout the book. Sometimes, I would devour whole chapters just to be bored with the next. This could just be a personal thing though since I'm not used to reading romance books, but to me, in some parts, it was just too slow. But don't let that put you off reading this book.
As with most romance stories, the plot is predictable, but I found it to be well written and very sweet. The plot questions were if Meghan and Cash escape the ever watchful eye of the paparazzi, would Cash ever get over his past, and would Cash still want Meghan even though she was pregnant with another man's baby. All those questions do get answered by the way.
I thought the characters were written fabulously. I found Meghan to be vulnerable at times, but she was such a brave girl with everything that was going on. I loved her maternal instinct when it came to her pregnancy as well as how she was very wary to trust after what Harold did to her. I loved Cash as well. I liked how at first, he didn't want to get involved with Meghan due to his past history. I enjoyed watching him open up to Meghan, and eventually, what lengths he went to in order to protect Meghan. My favorite character though was Cash's grandmother. I don't know how to describe her other then to say that she was very grandmotherly! I loved how sweet she was to Meghan and how she'd always volunteer Cash to do things (this had me chuckling). She wanted everyone to be happy. I just wish she didn't have to leave about a quarter through the story because I was really enjoying reading about her.
The dialogue never came across as forced. Yes, in some parts the pacing was slow, but this wasn't due to the dialogue. I enjoyed the dialogue the most whenever Cash's grandmother was around. She was just so sweet!!! One thing that did annoy me was the fact that over and over again, the book kept mentioning how Meghan wasn't a skinny woman. Yes, I got the point that she wasn't skinny the first few times I read it. However, it just seems to be pointed out a lot.
Overall, Rancher to the Rescue is a short and sweet story that would be excellent to read during the summer, on vacation or just any time really. Despite the pacing being a bit mixed up, I did enjoy this book.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 17+ who are looking for a something sweet in their lives.
I'd give Rancher to the Rescue by Jennifer Faye a 3.75 out of 5.
(I was given a free paperback copy of this book from the author in exchange for an honest and fair review).
Romances aren't usually my thing, but I like to get out of my comfort zone every now and again. I'm really glad I did though because Rancher to the Rescue by Jennifer Faye was such a sweet read.
Okay, I won't reiterate what the blurb says because it describes what the book is about perfectly (which is a rarity amongst books these days). Just now that with this book, what you see is what you get.
The title describes this book perfectly. It's about a rancher (Cash) saving a celebrity (Meghan). I couldn't think of a better title, so I think Ms. Faye did an excellent job coming up with the title Rancher to the Rescue.
The cover is alright. I've seen worse covers, but I've seen better ones as well. Personally, I would've liked to see more of a ranch scene behind the couple on the cover of the book especially since this takes place at a ranch.
The world building is fantastic. In fact, I don't think I can fault it. Every situation was explained excellently which left me with no questions whatsoever. Even when Meghan is running out on her wedding, I though the author did an excellent job of explaining how she avoided the paparazzi.
The pacing is a bit hit and miss throughout the book. Sometimes, I would devour whole chapters just to be bored with the next. This could just be a personal thing though since I'm not used to reading romance books, but to me, in some parts, it was just too slow. But don't let that put you off reading this book.
As with most romance stories, the plot is predictable, but I found it to be well written and very sweet. The plot questions were if Meghan and Cash escape the ever watchful eye of the paparazzi, would Cash ever get over his past, and would Cash still want Meghan even though she was pregnant with another man's baby. All those questions do get answered by the way.
I thought the characters were written fabulously. I found Meghan to be vulnerable at times, but she was such a brave girl with everything that was going on. I loved her maternal instinct when it came to her pregnancy as well as how she was very wary to trust after what Harold did to her. I loved Cash as well. I liked how at first, he didn't want to get involved with Meghan due to his past history. I enjoyed watching him open up to Meghan, and eventually, what lengths he went to in order to protect Meghan. My favorite character though was Cash's grandmother. I don't know how to describe her other then to say that she was very grandmotherly! I loved how sweet she was to Meghan and how she'd always volunteer Cash to do things (this had me chuckling). She wanted everyone to be happy. I just wish she didn't have to leave about a quarter through the story because I was really enjoying reading about her.
The dialogue never came across as forced. Yes, in some parts the pacing was slow, but this wasn't due to the dialogue. I enjoyed the dialogue the most whenever Cash's grandmother was around. She was just so sweet!!! One thing that did annoy me was the fact that over and over again, the book kept mentioning how Meghan wasn't a skinny woman. Yes, I got the point that she wasn't skinny the first few times I read it. However, it just seems to be pointed out a lot.
Overall, Rancher to the Rescue is a short and sweet story that would be excellent to read during the summer, on vacation or just any time really. Despite the pacing being a bit mixed up, I did enjoy this book.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 17+ who are looking for a something sweet in their lives.
I'd give Rancher to the Rescue by Jennifer Faye a 3.75 out of 5.
(I was given a free paperback copy of this book from the author in exchange for an honest and fair review).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mauritanian (2021) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Great acting from all four leads, especially Tahar Rahim (2 more)
Great use of screen ratios for flashbacks
Very thought provoking
War crimes don't just happen on the battlefield
It’s 2001. Bush and Rumsfeld seek vengeance on the perpetrators of 9/11. Quite right too. But rounding up hundreds of suspects and incarcerating them for years, without charge, in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba was an appalling act for a supposedly first-world country.
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
Lee (2222 KP) rated An American Pickle (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
A fish-out-of-water movie where Seth Rogen plays two members of the same family, brought together following an accident which left one of them preserved in brine for 100 years? It’s a wacky premise, and with Rogen in the title role, you’d probably form a pretty good idea of how this might play out as a goofball comedy. Thankfully, it’s not like that at all.
It’s 1919. Herschel Greenbaum leads a simple life, working as a ditch-digger in Eastern European village Schlupsk – a tough job, that results in many broken shovels. One day though, his luck changes when he meets Sarah, and they fall in love. They have so much in common – his parents were murdered by Cossacks, her parents were murdered by Cossacks, not to mention the fact that they both like black! But when those pesky Cossacks ravage the village on their wedding day, Herschel and Sarah decide to set sail for America, with plans for a new life in the land of opportunity. Settling in Brooklyn, Herschel still has pretty simple life goals, wanting one day to be able to experience the luxury of seltzer water (“I want the bubbles to tickle my tongue”). But he and his now pregnant wife vow that in 100 years time, the Greenbaum name will actually mean something.
Herschel lands himself a slightly better job than ditch-digger – chasing and killing rats in a pickle factory! But an unfortunate accident sees Herschel falling into a large vat of pickles, right at the very moment that the factory gets condemned and shut down. The lid is placed on the vat and the workers quickly abandon the factory, leaving Herschel perfectly preserved in the brine. 100 years pass, and the city develops around the factory, which miraculously seems to remain untouched until 2019, when a couple of kids venture inside and remove the lid of the vat, releasing Herschel from his hibernation.
The science behind how this perfect preservation was possible is hilariously glossed over, and when his only living relative is discovered, Herschel is released into his care. Great-grandson Ben (also played by Rogen) is an app developer residing in Brooklyn, and with no living family is overjoyed at the opportunity to take Herschel back to his apartment and begin introducing him to the future.
Ben has a SodaStream, so finally being able to enjoy the tickling bubbles of seltzer water is already a highlight for Herschel. Ben also owns 25 pairs of socks, which is amazing as he only has two feet! But it’s not long before Herschel begins to question why Ben doesn’t have any family photos up in his apartment and why the mobile app that Ben has been working so hard on for the last five years hasn’t really taken off. After discovering that the plot of land where his wife Sarah is buried sits right beneath a billboard advertising vodka (“Cossack vodka!”), Herschel becomes determined to raise the $200,000 needed to buy the plot of land so that he can remove the billboard.
The trailer for An American Pickle gave the impression that, despite the obvious wackiness of the plot, there was evidence of a strong family movie at the heart – a touching representation of what it would mean to be able to spend some time with one of your ancestors. There are certainly elements of that here, early on and in the latter parts of the movie. However, with their differing approaches to family values and attitudes to business, the pair soon fall out, and there is a lengthy period of bickering and backstabbing, which eventually becomes tiresome. Herschel starts setting up his own pickle business from scratch, while a jealous Ben does his very best to ruin everything. It’s a noticeable lack of focus that ultimately lets the movie down.
Despite that, it’s wonderful to see Seth Rogen in such different roles. I’m not usually a fan of his, bored of his usual stoner shtick in almost every movie he’s in. But I really enjoyed his performances in this, especially as the thickly accented Herschel, and his interactions with Ben are both charming and wonderful at times.
It’s 1919. Herschel Greenbaum leads a simple life, working as a ditch-digger in Eastern European village Schlupsk – a tough job, that results in many broken shovels. One day though, his luck changes when he meets Sarah, and they fall in love. They have so much in common – his parents were murdered by Cossacks, her parents were murdered by Cossacks, not to mention the fact that they both like black! But when those pesky Cossacks ravage the village on their wedding day, Herschel and Sarah decide to set sail for America, with plans for a new life in the land of opportunity. Settling in Brooklyn, Herschel still has pretty simple life goals, wanting one day to be able to experience the luxury of seltzer water (“I want the bubbles to tickle my tongue”). But he and his now pregnant wife vow that in 100 years time, the Greenbaum name will actually mean something.
Herschel lands himself a slightly better job than ditch-digger – chasing and killing rats in a pickle factory! But an unfortunate accident sees Herschel falling into a large vat of pickles, right at the very moment that the factory gets condemned and shut down. The lid is placed on the vat and the workers quickly abandon the factory, leaving Herschel perfectly preserved in the brine. 100 years pass, and the city develops around the factory, which miraculously seems to remain untouched until 2019, when a couple of kids venture inside and remove the lid of the vat, releasing Herschel from his hibernation.
The science behind how this perfect preservation was possible is hilariously glossed over, and when his only living relative is discovered, Herschel is released into his care. Great-grandson Ben (also played by Rogen) is an app developer residing in Brooklyn, and with no living family is overjoyed at the opportunity to take Herschel back to his apartment and begin introducing him to the future.
Ben has a SodaStream, so finally being able to enjoy the tickling bubbles of seltzer water is already a highlight for Herschel. Ben also owns 25 pairs of socks, which is amazing as he only has two feet! But it’s not long before Herschel begins to question why Ben doesn’t have any family photos up in his apartment and why the mobile app that Ben has been working so hard on for the last five years hasn’t really taken off. After discovering that the plot of land where his wife Sarah is buried sits right beneath a billboard advertising vodka (“Cossack vodka!”), Herschel becomes determined to raise the $200,000 needed to buy the plot of land so that he can remove the billboard.
The trailer for An American Pickle gave the impression that, despite the obvious wackiness of the plot, there was evidence of a strong family movie at the heart – a touching representation of what it would mean to be able to spend some time with one of your ancestors. There are certainly elements of that here, early on and in the latter parts of the movie. However, with their differing approaches to family values and attitudes to business, the pair soon fall out, and there is a lengthy period of bickering and backstabbing, which eventually becomes tiresome. Herschel starts setting up his own pickle business from scratch, while a jealous Ben does his very best to ruin everything. It’s a noticeable lack of focus that ultimately lets the movie down.
Despite that, it’s wonderful to see Seth Rogen in such different roles. I’m not usually a fan of his, bored of his usual stoner shtick in almost every movie he’s in. But I really enjoyed his performances in this, especially as the thickly accented Herschel, and his interactions with Ben are both charming and wonderful at times.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sleepless (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A potentially good ‘B’ movie undone.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 came up with the oft used quote that “there is nothing new under the sun”. “Sleepless” proves that in spades.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In God, and Doss, we Trust.
Those dreaded words – “Based On A True Story” – emerge again from the blackness of the opening page. Actually, no. In a move that could be considered arrogant if it wasn’t so well researched, here we even lose the first two words.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.