A woman down on her luck decides to rent a house in the countryside for the weekend only to find out that it belongs to a psychopath.
Entertaining, scary, and surrealistically crazy! I bet you’ve heard about these two types of films: character-driven and story-driven. Well, this is one helluva crazy character-driven comedy/horror by Richard Bates Jr. who did his absolute best to gather and develop characters you would only think of if you were on dope. Honestly, it’s one of them films that you don’t know how or why to suggest it to anyone, yet you do.
Like quite a few other horrors lately, Tone-Deaf (or Killer Instinct?) focuses on the Grand Canyon-size gap between the Millennials, and the old-fashioned, not politically-correct people, makes fun of both by breaking the 4th wall, and soliloquies that are meant to make you think, but also entertain you. Do they achieve that though? Yes and no. They set the foundation of contemplation but don’t delve into it and, consequently, they end up unnoticeable.
I enjoyed it for the most part, especially some anecdotal parts, such as the sequence in the Tinder guy’s place (no spoilers), but I was disappointed with the ending. I found the second act’s last dialogues childish, rushed, and out of character. Surely, that could have been improved but most definitely wasn’t. Anyway, it’s a film that will take your mind off things, Robert Patrick’s and Amanda Crew’s performances are quite enjoyable, and they make quite the team as the villain and anti-heroine respectively.
When inexplicably the power goes down globally and no one can sleep, a mother is tasked to lead her daughter, the only person who can sleep, to a hub in search of a potential cure.
Suspenseful story, anticlimactic execution. I’ll cut to the chase. Gina Rodriguez does a great job as a struggling mother who does what needs to be done. Undeniable! She’s a brilliant actress and deserves a lot of praise. Actually, Rodriguez and story writer Gregory Poirier deserve all the praise in the film.
Unfortunately, the story’s development to a script and Mark Raso’s directing prove to be quite problematic. All the obstacles the mom and the kids have to face, in reality, would have been next to impossible. But in Raso’s Awake, solutions are easily found to the point of gimmick. And horror fans don’t like easy ways out.
Problems though start way before that as the global catastrophe just happens and its symptoms just spread with nothing building up in the process, keeping the suspense (just) at the lowest possible level. Once again, Rodriguez’s performance saves parts of the film, but, despite her efforts, its anticlimactic narrative damages, an otherwise, good story. Mainly, I blame Netflix! They have all the money in the world and they could have overseen the script and its plot holes before they green-lit it.
If I go on, I’ll probably start talking about the clichéd American reactions and emotional responses to certain stimuli as well as how the numbers don’t add up with the mom’s age and the kids’ and the subplot. So, I’ll stop here and hope that Raso’s next film will avoid all of the aforementioned and Rodriguez will star in an existential drama that will fully unfold her thespian skills.
P.S. For a proper parent’s struggle throughout a global catastrophe (and obviously main influence of Awake), see The War of the Worlds (2005).
A luxurious resort sends a cohort of families to a secluded beach where, inexplicably, they rapidly get older.
Mixed feelings over a simple premise. Starting with the narrative, During Act I, nothing’s happening, and the lack of the inciting incident negatively impacts the film’s pace and rhythm. By definition, that creates a tremendous contrast with the second act where everything’s happening. Act II is… death! People are dropping like flies and all you know is that that beach is making everyone… old. But there is more to it as certain wounds heal, others get worse, and so on. So, stick around to the very end to see what Act III has in store for you.
From a directing point of view, M. Night Shyamalan is in full control of his camera and its movement. He takes charge of what to disclose, or not to and why, and most importantly, how to deal with either case. Very interesting crane shots, tracking shots, and Hitchcock’s zooms in moments where age abnormality incidents are about to occur. The second act is where he patiently builds up the suspense and horror in order to lead to the climactic night.
Shyamalan, based on Pierre Oscar Lévy’s graphic novel ‘Sandcastle’ and heavily influenced by Luis Buñuel’s satire The Exterminating Angel (1962) wrote the script before the pandemic hit but shot the film right in the middle of it. Making sure that all precautions are taken, himself, the crew, and the cast were stunned by the similarities of what they were shooting and the effects the pandemic had in the world (especially, last year). After all, Old deals with isolation (lock-down), the roots of death (virus), the fear of infection, and the way out of this tragedy. Surprisingly immaculate timing, indeed. Speaking of the cast: Gael García Bernal,Vicky Krieps, Rufus Sewell, Abbey Lee, Ken Leung, Amuka-Bird, Aaron Pierre and the rest of the cast do a great job portraying their characters, adding with their performances to Shyamalan’s vision. Embeth Davidtz gets a separate mention as I’m biased (I admit it) and find her amazing in everything she’s been in.
Other than the aforementioned influences, Shyamalan said, originally, he wanted to get involved with this project due to his parents getting old and personal phobias of his. Be it as it may, I bought and read Lévy’s ‘Sandcastle’ as, admittedly, I was not aware of – and I was really interested in observing the differences. The adaptation is remarkable and I take my hat off to both Lévy for grasping this concept and Shyamalan for bringing it to life. There is something I noticed though that I believe in Old became a fainted subplot when, I believe, it should have been, arguably, the main plot: Life is too short! I know it sounds cliché, but it is! And the pandemic made (most of) us rethink and rearrange our priorities in life. And not only is it too short, but whatever problems we think we may have now, these problems will be amplified as the years pass by. And all we are going to be left with is remorse for all the things we never tried, reminiscence, and one last chance for redemption. Maybe, think about that while watching it.
Of course, this is Hollywood and this is Shyamalan so the result has to be somewhat fancy and there has to be a twist. Personally, I didn’t find the twist so impactful as it raised some questions that led me to plot holes. Overall, I found it intriguing though and I highly recommend it despite its flaws. I hope you enjoy it and makes you think about life after the end credits start scrolling down.
The House of Atreides moves to planet Arrakis to protect the most precious resource of existence, but yet another interstellar feud amongst the Houses is just about to begin.
Yet another feud, yet another cinematic achievement from Denis Villeneuve! A phantasmagorical Part 1 that will impress even the hardest ones to please! Dune has it all; the solid script and acting, the state-of-the-art visuals and sounds, Hans Zimmer’s epic soundtrack, the extraordinary photography, the controlled pace and rhythm… everything!
Villeneuve did not become slave to the original source – Frank Herbert’s already amazing novel – but respected it, visualised it in a way no one has done before, and materialised it like no one has done before. While watching it, I couldn’t help but wonder: did I ever imagine in the early 90s, while playing the game, that I will watch Dune, a film of that magnitude, on the big screen? Yet, here I am having watched it… ready already for Part Two.
One may notice the numerous liberties taken adapting the film, but we need to remember that film is a visual medium and that an adaptation is a product of its era (think from societal needs and restrictions to VFX). And Villeneuve’s liberties work like a Swiss watch. See for example the fighting styles: As per IMDb, Fight Coordinator Roger Yuan gave the House of Harkonnen ancient Mongolian fighting skills and the House of Atreides Filipino fighting skills, a visual result that matches the nature of the two Houses. The same applies for the costume design that doesn’t resemble the book’s descriptions, and yet every costume encapsulates the status of each House.
The all-star cast comprises of: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Jason Momoa, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Sharon Duncan-Brewster, Zendaya, Stellan Skarsgård, Chang Chen, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling, and more. An excellent cast that shines in front of the camera. My only issue with Hollywood, and not the film in particular, is that everyone has to be attractive. Everyone could as well be a model on an underwear or a fragrance poster. But whatever… I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve brought that one up.
Every department, every cinematic technique applied, everything you see and hear… can be thoroughly analysed individually, but also collectively. And either for research or purely informative purposes, researchers and columnists, respectively, will write extensively about Dune. For now, what you need to do, is turn off the lights, turn down your phones, turn up your sound system, and enjoy a unique cinematic experience.
A teenage girl has sex for the first time and wakes up the next day pregnant with an alien that wants to multiply and conquer the world.
Funny and entertaining, that’s it! Starting off with living, breathing high school clichés, I couldn’t see how this was going to be promising. Boy, am I glad to be wrong. Snatchers might not be horror per se but, as aforementioned, it is funny and highly entertaining! Mary Nepi, Gabrielle Elyse, J.J. Nolan, Austin Fryberger, Rich Fulcher, and Ashley Argota are nailing their parts and under the meticulous guidance of the directors Stephen Cedars and Benji Kleiman, who are in full control of every shot they’ve taken, and through ‘snappy’ editing, they control the narrative’s pace and rhythm throughout all acts. I know it’s not a film that has been or will be talked about, but films like Snatchers highly indicate that editing defines principal photography. In other words, postproduction starts in preproduction however convoluted that may sound.
There is so much to say about certain filmmaking details, just like the one mentioned above, but, honestly, I find no reason to implicate film theories when you can just enjoy it without my verbosity. It makes one wonder the reasons behind certain malicious reviews when, even just watching the trailer, you know what you sign up for. The script’s nonsensical trajectory makes actually sense as it adds to the non-believability which is actually intentional and slyly parodies similar actual horror films that most of us have grown up with.
To sum it up, Snatchers is great fun, especially for millennials but not only. Don’t take it seriously as, again, intentionally, it doesn’t take seriously itself. Something that I actually prefer to self-righteous and self-important films that aim to pseudo-philosophise, be wannabe didactic, or end up being pedantic. Based on the 2015, 6-minute homonymous short film by the same directors and main actors, Snatchers earns its stripes in the comedy/horror pantheon and I very much look forward to watching Kleiman’s and Cedars’ next project. Remember, the comedy-horror balance is not written on stone and it takes a whole village to be achieved.
A female assassin races against time to find out and kill the person who poisoned her and whoever else stands in her way.
Great fun (not) for the whole family! Bad news first: Not an original script! It’s been done before in numerous variations so, it’s not gonna shock you with the lack of authenticity. Now, for the good news…
Mary Elizabeth Winstead kicks a$$! She’s a very talented actress, an extremely gorgeous woman, and Kate proves that there is no role she cannot take on. Her performance is remarkable and I couldn’t help but notice the astonishing similarity of hers with Ripley – arguably, the greatest bada$$! Combined, later on, with the red eye and the half damaged face… (you’ll see!) Speaking of great performances, Miku Patricia Martineau deserves an extra round of applause for her incredibly brave performance! Woody Harrelson and Jun Kunimura just add quality to the film by appearing in it and no matter what I say will not make them look greater than they already are.
The fight scenes, however choreographed, are a match for the John Wick franchise and Winstead does her absolute best to add (pseudo)realism to what usually doesn’t really look convincing. My hat off to the choreographers and the stunts that make her look even greater and make something so ugly (that kind of fighting, not professional) look so beautiful.
Umair Aleem and Cedric Nicolas-Troyan manage to write and direct, respectively, a great action flick that, surprisingly, evokes the desired feelings. Now, that is authentic! To watch a film like Kate and before, during, and after the action scenes feeling, at times, your heart skip a beat and your breath short. I’ve said it numerous times, no genre can stand on its own without drama. Even comedy. Especially, comedy actually. See King of Comedy (1982) if you have any doubts. Nicolas-Troyan and Winstead will make you feel for Kate, both as a character but also a film. Highly recommended!
After her husband dies, a woman starts dreaming of people and places that reveal secrets that should have been left buried with him.
I’ll start with the very obvious. Rebecca Hall is amazing at anything she’s in. She’s a phenomenal actress that deserves every praise. Here, she’s wearing the executive producer’s hat as well so more ‘congratulations’ are in order. On to the story now…
The best part of the film is that it slowly and gradually builds up the suspense. It spreads the “crumbs” so delicately that informs, to a certain extent misleads, while at the same, it time keeps you on your toes. See for example the moment where Beth falls asleep at Claire’s lap. The scene is haunting. And that’s just the top of the iceberg. Wait until the end and see where these “crumbs” lead. Writers Ben Collins and Luke Piotrowski prepare a great finale for their already well-developed story and director David Bruckner envisions it in an, honestly, unique and original way. Bruckner seems to always find ways to project human phobias in ways that shock and mesmerise at the same time. But don’t take my word for it. Watch previous films of his, such as: VHS (2012), Southbound (2015), and The Ritual (2017) and see for yourselves. He’s a brilliant director with so much to offer to the horror genre. Can’t wait for his next project.
Definitely, go for it! It’s a refreshing change for the genre, using mainly practical effects and deviates from the standard Hollywood clichés that have damaged the horror films, thankfully, not irreparably. An extra round of applause to the actors Sarah Goldberg and Vondie Curtis-Hall for their amazing support. You will not know what to look for, this is why you will not see it coming… I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Happy Halloween!
A woman starts having horrible nightmares that turn out to be visions of actual violent crimes that she is unwillingly involved.
Amazing opening shot followed by an hour and fifty minutes of Hollywood dumbness. I hate writing this way about films, especially horrors. I’ve said it numerous times. Horror fans might be somewhat eccentric and geeks, but we are not dumb! James Wan especially and New Line Cinema should know and respect that. Even though the story is decent, its development is dumb, the character development is beyond understanding and that should stop! Let me rephrase, it should have stopped a long time ago. “Jump scares” is a tool for narrative, not a narrative pattern to build a whole film on. Same applies for the cardboard cut out characters that no one can empathise with.
Why is it that you hear the word ‘dumb’ and its permutations again and again? Because a solid narrative does not rely on constant music to evoke the desired emotions and feelings. That applies for every genre, in this instance though, for both the drama and the horror unfolding in the story. Take Winnie for example: a Hollywood typical. Ingrid Bisu, often cast by Wan, is a wonderful woman (and actress) and she pretends to be a geek who the person who has a crush on won’t even consider looking her that way. Also, she seems like a cat person who can;t find love. PLEASE! Honestly, name one girl who looks like that, is a geek, and cannot find someone (she co-wrote it, by the way).
James Wan is a solid director, I especially love his tracking shots and his use of close-ups. It’s not enough though. Malignant’s script is full of plot holes and that shows so much more on the big screen. And no filmmaking technique or decent acting can make that right. I wish I could be less harsh on the film, but, trust me, I’m already holding my punches.
P.S. OK, the prison and police station sequences were gruesomely entertaining!
A private investigator with access to people’s memories unfolds a conspiracy that also involves the disappearance of his beloved woman.
Interesting yet intricate plot that tells more than it shows. What has happened, but not to the full extent, becomes pretty straightforward from the very beginning. Until the inciting incident, a sci-fi, neo-noir unfolds that emphasises on nostalgia. Once it becomes clear what the story is about, the plot and the subplot become respectively unclear. I struggled to figure out which is which. One is a decent love story and the other is a decent crime one. But which one is the plot? And what are they together if both of them are the plot? Or the subplot? See the confusion?
There is a jigsaw waiting to be put in order and Hugh Jackman, Thandiwe Newton, Rebecca Ferguson and (the massively underrated) Cliff Curtis do a great job putting it together, but the film’s imbalance, and the editing’s rhythm and pace do not help. Director Lisa Joy, the woman behind Westworld (2016-2022) gets Newton and Angela Sarafyan on board and even though she did a very decent job putting it together the result was not probably exactly what she hoped for. That said, the extremely poor box office does not reflect on that result – Budget: $54,000,000 (estimated) / International Box Office: $11,900,000. You will not regret watching it so go for it.
Here’s another one for you. At times, it felt like this was a film about Hugh Jackman, who, in his fifties, he still looks the same awesome, well-trained, good-looking man he was ten and twenty years ago. Not saying this is positive or negative but it becomes yet another factor that takes the focus away from the story and, consequently, distracts. Again, I hope you forget your problems for about two hours and enjoy it.
P.S. Fun fact: Lisa Joy is the wife of Jonathan Nolan, brother of Christopher Nolan who has directed Hugh Jackman in Prestige (2006)
P.P.S. Fun fact 2: Hugh Jackman and Rebecca Ferguson worked together before in The Greatest Showman (2017)
A road-rage incident makes an unstable man go berserk on a young mother and everyone she cares about.
Intense and brutal action/thriller with a bat-sh*t crazy Crowe! The film doesn’t lack anything. Great performances, relatable characters, chase sequences, realistic violence, and great editing pace and rhythm. Yet, it didn’t do that well at the box office, but I guess being one of the first theatrical release entries after the US lockdown is the main reason. Director Derrick Borte envisages this American horrific reality, Russell Crowe and Caren Pistorius go full throttle against each other on screen, and the result is definitely worth your time. It is not a film you’ll be constantly talking about after the end credits start scrolling down, but it’s a great addition to the series of thrillers/horrors where someone… unhinged, with unknown at first motives, goes after the hero/ine while committing atrocities. I can’t hide that my favourite one is Steven Spielberg’s original Duel (1971).
To cut the long story short, I very much enjoyed it, and I highly recommend it to suspense lovers like myself. Rachel’s decisions are somewhat annoying from time to time, but it’s not her fault as the Hollywood-type script dictates such decisions. Unfortunately, we live in a world where road rage has spread like pestilence and it’s everywhere. Hideous crimes happen daily on the streets just because someone happened to hit the break abruptly. It’s shocking, horrible, uncivilised, and inhumane. Watching Unhinged and saying “reality is worse” is not encouraging. We all need to chill the f@€% out.
P.S. For those who think that Crow has completely let himself go, please know that he had been consulting a dietitian to achieve that result throughout the film.
An underachieving gay writer returns home after many years to support his terminally I’ll mom… and face the rest of the family.
The type of American cinema that knows what to cut out, when, and how to balance feelings. Succeeding in making a comedy/drama is as hard as making a comedy/horror. And Other People will make you laugh as much as it will make you cry. Jesse Plemons and Molly Shannon make an excellent on-screen duet and writer/director Chris Kelly gives them the opportunity to shine and evoke all the intended emotions.
Tragicomedy describes all three acts with little things such as the milkshake order, which in its simplicity I found genuinely hilarious, or mum farting. The dialogues are authentic and the performances are immense. There is so much I could say to connect film theories on cinematic realism to the independent American cinema but I see no reason to do so. Therefore, I’ll keep this one shorter than usual and hope that you get the chance to watch it and laugh and cry and, respectively, recommend it to as many people as possible to share your experience. Because, as we tend to think, real-life events such as the ones unfolding in the film are situations experienced only by… other people.
A father from Oregon makes it a mission to walk to New York and preach along the way against bullying after his teenage son gets tortured for being gay.
Mixed feelings throughout all three acts. Right off the bat, from the first flashbacks, the first impression is that a working-class dad who surprisingly supports his son for being gay does not support him enough to have him parade it in his front yard. Therefore, my question was: his problem was showing it off? Then, I thought to myself that it is biographical so if this is how it was, this is how it was. Then, I got a different problem. As the story develops, I thought that it doesn’t let you think for yourself at all; it spoon-feeds you the message all the way through. It forces you to side with Jadin by telling you – not showing you – who the “bad” guy is and who the “good” guy is in a black or white manner. Then, there is another “then”: Jadin accusing Joe for not being supportive enough, and Joe accusing Jadin for not handling it (in present era) creates a vague gray area in the film’s otherwise “black or white” scheme for the supportive people but questions their level of support. Here’s my two cents in general…
People, and more specifically bullies, need to feel what it is like to be bullied without being bullied, hated or criticised for thinking and acting the way they do. They need to understand that to other people they are as different as the people they pick on. I did some research and this is what the real Joe Bell tried to do. He was non-violently preaching against it because his son faced the consequences and he wanted, to his best abilities, to make the world a better place. A friendly for all of us place so no one has to suffer what his son did, and, consequently, any other boy, girl, man, woman, or non-binary person out there.
Somehow though, Mark Wahlberg as Joe Bell, the late Larry McMurty (RIP) and Diana Ossana’s script, and Reinaldo Marcus Green’s directing does not reflect that. Joe Bell does not know where to focus on and massively holds back on the emotions it means to evoke. Take for example when his mother, Lola (Connie Britton), finds out. This should have been the moment where the toughest one breaks. And one wonders, how can this be with so many A-list names wearing the producer’s hat: Mark Wahlberg, Cary Joji Fukunaga, Jake Gyllenhaal, Paris Kassidokostas-Latsis, and 17 more…
To cut the long story short, Joe Bell makes it more about Joe Bell rather than his incredibly noble and courageous mission. Ironically, he says it himself to the sheriff while opening up. And he keeps doing it. Shame really as if it wasn’t for this film I, and potentially hundreds of thousands of others, wouldn’t have known about this mission. But the real shame is that his mission’s message doesn’t really permeate. It does not sink in and therefore there is nothing much to take away from it. And the Bell family’s story is absolutely f@£$!^% tragic!
I really do hope each of us finds an honourable way to make this world feel like… home. For everyone!
A gang of highly skilled killers invades the blind man’s house to kidnap his daughter, not knowing what he is capable of.
Worthy sequel shot in a standard Hollywood manner. Acting first: Stephen Lang is an incredible actor. That’s it.
Moving on to the plot, it gets trickier. The first act sets a thrilling foundation that promises a horrific brutality that, potentially, matches the first. The first plot point’s protracted tracking shot increases the tension while making obvious what is about happen next. And what is actually happening is quite brutal. As brutal as promised though? Yes! So what are the differences with Don’t Breathe (2016)?
Don’t Breathe 2 is a lot more far-fetched but reasonable enough for a sequel. Not a problem, it’s expected. Then… In the first one, what we have is poor, untalented boys and girls – harmless thieves who have no idea what they are up against – enter the blind man’s house whose intentions are revealed to be shockingly sinister and unfathomably perverse. In Don’t Breathe 2, the competition is way tougher and, against all odds, he is (somehow) the victim – even though the twist and consequently the intentions come a tad early. But the confrontation (act 2) is not restricted to just a house and develops the story and leads it even further than expected, to, actually, extremely unexpected paths. As I can’t say much about the plot’s development, I’ll focus on the one thing that got me asking: What the hell was going on in writer/director Rodo Sayagues’ head while balancing the characters’ morality? What everyone has done, is doing, and what is about to do is just beyond me. And I leave you with that. From a filmmaking point of view, there is nothing much to say. Other than the aforementioned protracted shot, nothing much stands out. From a narrative point of view, the film walks a tight rope risking to lose the audience by tipping the scales as to who to root for – the morality issue.
Watch it and see for yourselves what I mean. It does not necessarily mean that it’s “good” or “bad”, that’s hardly ever the case anyway. Overall, I found it enjoyable and do recommend it. It’s the kind of morbid entertainment that doesn’t come even remotely close the horrific reality we are currently facing.
An agoraphobic woman witnesses a crime that, in order to take action, she will have to face her deepest fear.
Interesting premise, great acting, yet fails to deliver on many fronts. Amy Adams, Gary Oldman, Julianne Moore, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Wyatt Russell are great. That’s the elephant in the room. Tracy Letts’ script and Joe Wright’s directing create a significant issue though: they increase, by the minute, the distance between the audience and Anna – admittedly, not intentionally. The close-ups are plenty, and so are the Dutch angles, the tracking shots, and the low and high angles throughout. It would be very interesting to ask the editor, Valerio Bonelli, about his experience editing it. It feels like its pace is all over the place and its rhythm like a song you want to like but you are too confused to dance to it. Bonelli seems like the person who puts together scattered pieces of visuals that the filmmakers had no idea what to do with. That causes the twists to not being able to find their place in the plot and, consequently, they lose their gravitas. The fact that A.J. Finn’s book has been receiving raving reviews and the film nothing but scathing, makes Wright’s film a mediocre adaptation for the big screen. I haven’t read the book though therefore, I cannot really comment on that, just putting it out.
This is a character-driven story that shouldn’t have been Brian DePalma meets Alfred Hitchcock, but Body Double (1984) meets Rear Window (1954). It’s a real shame to have so many talented people involved in front and behind the cameras and get that head-scratching result. Too many techniques and influences that, ultimately, cancel each other out and leave the audience indifferent, at best. In the end, I didn’t know if it was the plot’s drama or the final cut’s that made me want to cry. I’ll go with the latter.
A peek at the week of a man who struggles to go through it.
Well-written story that deserves some budget to take off. Upstate Story is the case where the script is better than the film. Not because writer/director Shaun Rose doesn’t have the skills to pull it off, but strictly due to budgetary restraints that don’t allow him to develop it the way he envisioned it.
Upstate Story surfaces an enormous problem that many people fail to address and, consequently, deal with; the unfulfillment. The notion that we could have done so much more with our lives if were just given the chance. What makes it worse, is asking, to the point of begging, for this chance from people who have been given that chance and didn’t deserve it to begin with. And then time goes by and that chance seems further and further away, sucking, at first, our energy and then our lives like a black hole of despair. And while these nihilistic thoughts consume us like woodworms, during these darkest hours, Upstate Story‘s hidden positivity urges us to always hang onto whatever we consider a lighthouse in our lives, and be guided by it so we don’t crash on the rocks.
Ellis Martin is a real-life, relatable character that can be developed into a person that one day will find the purpose he so eagerly seeks and write a book called “Against All Odds” or “Finding the Strength”, but he can also become the person who grabs a gun and enters a mall. He represents a surprisingly huge portion of people out there who have unexplored skills that could make all the difference in the world. A person’s thoughts represent them and Ellis’ choice of words renders him the poster-child of the endless Freudian battle between id, ego, and superego.
Yes, few minutes from here and there could be shaved off in the cutting room and, yes, a lot more could have been done to make it visually more impressive, but that leads us back to the no-budget-indie-filmmaking issue. Just try to be in the hero’s shoes for an hour and, maybe, imagine that this minimalism expresses and represents countless people who struggle with a dead-end nine to survive job. If it were a small-budget film, it would have swept through the festivals and be an Oscar bait if Billy Bob Thornton was in it. Even so, it was selected as a semi-finalist at the Los Angeles Cinefest, and it’s a proud winner of the Feature Film Silver Award at CINEMAFEST 2018.
After losing their only son and their remarried daughter-in-law moves away against her will with their grandson, a retired sheriff and his wife set out to bring them back.
An amazing on-screen couple in a suspenseful, yet emotionally superficial story. My suspicions about the depth started with the inciting incident which was the death of their son. It would have really made me cry if writer/director Thomas Bezucha let Kevin Costner be the actor he really is and then cut to Diane Lane’s response. A father losing his only son is a scene that would break anyone in half. Let alone followed by the mother’s reaction. And Let Him Go… lets it go quite easily – no pun intended. I get the hard-macho-old-sheriff-ranch man who doesn’t show many feelings but even they develop strong bonds with their sons (but also daughters).
Having said that, what Bezucha does well is build up the suspense. The moment they start asking about Donnie Weboy it gets quite intense. It gets, actually, surprisingly intense. And then they make it to dinner with the Weboys where I could hear heartbeat. I say no more about that because you need to watch it for yourselves. But the emotions keep fluctuating throughout and neither build up nor reach climax. Shame really because the story has all the right ingredients that are lost in the plot’s development.
Diane Lane and Kevin Costner were a great couple as Clark Kent’s parents and are a great couple here as well. They play it really well from the beginning, to the motel’s room, to the revenge. Let Him Go is definitely worth-watching and even though it could dwell on the drama a lot more it most definitely transcends the difference between the way men and women think and how that affects them both. Plus, the final scene in the house pays off.
But forget what I or anyone else thinks about it and, as I said, have a go at it. It is Lane and Costner in the same film. In the meantime…
A man who just came out of prison is trying to rehabilitate, but life seems to have more downs than expected.
Working-class problems and unfulfilled dreams portrayed in a disjointed way. Watching it I was trying to figure it out… I was wondering… why is it that I find it disjointed? Halfway there, it somewhat hit me. It felt like writer/director Sabrina Doyle hasn’t experienced what she has written and directed. And, if I’m mistaken and she has, she hasn’t been able to translate it to the screen. The same applies to Pablo Schreiber and Jena Malone’s capacity as executive producers because as actors they are doing a fine job, but as producers they should have contributed, I believe, a lot more. They are really great actors, but Doyle’s script and directing ties their hands behind their backs. I honestly feel like the film misses the depth it deserves and both Schreiber and Malone shine – Schreiber especially put a lot of effort both physically and emotionally. Malone, on the other hand, is amazing as she always have been in every film she’s been in.
Regardless of what I say though, Lorelei did critically well and I couldn’t be happier about it. Sounds contradictory? I couldn’t be happier about a film doing well that deals with working class issues, second chances, and chasing dreams. And that’s what it deals with at the end of the day. The chances we have been looking for in life and we were never afforded. The dreadful questions every morning when we struggle to get out of bed; what have I done wrong or why I cannot fix it? Lorelei‘s intentions are honest and even though it could have been made differently, it still urges the viewer to go after their dreams. I hope one day we all manage to stay up all night and watch the sun rise from the ocean.
The vast majority of pro-Purgers take the law into their own hands and extend the New Founding Fathers of America’s tradition… indefinitely.
The burning issues of a modern society under the microscope of a tired annual blood holiday. I liked the opening credits’ titles to be fair, as they were creative and summed up a lot of the issues we are currently facing that either make us ashamed of ourselves, depress us, enrage us, or just cut our breath short. This Purge though doesn’t build up like its predecessors did, and the reason is non other than the obvious: this purge does not end; it is merely the beginning. And as much as this could be something refreshing in the franchise, it ends up being pedantic, to say the least. It lacks depth and premasticates the meaning for you with the intent to unnecessarily lead and intentionally prevent you from thinking for yourselves.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind the honest message behind it, but I don’t appreciate the way Hollywood undermines the audience’s intelligence. I don’t like badly criticising films that dozens of talented people have starred in and thousands of also talented people have worked in all three stages of production. For example, the two and a half minute shot is remarkable and even though it has been done before and it has been done better, the fact still remains that both cast and crew have put their hearts and soul in it. Producers Michael Bay and Jason Blum should be giving a lot more credits to the people that spend money and time for their entertainment. Like myself, all horror fans but also cinephiles want to appreciate an, at least, decent cinematic experience. That’s ll we ask. They are talented filmmakers with years of experience under their belt, and I would be honoured if I were to work with them. Films like The Forever Purge though feel more like capitalising the decay our world experiences rather than urging people to think why they feel or act the way they do and where they stand in a world that craves for diversity and unity.
Writer James DeMonaco and the studios should have put an end to the franchise a long time ago but I’ll leave you with a positive note. If you make it to the closing credits, blast the music and enjoy! Awesome and meaningful song!
P.S. Still, my thoughts and prayers go out to the people who suffer from real-life horrors and dramas, such as the unspeakable wildfires that swallow everything in their path and their aftermath!
A truffle hunter who lives alone in the woods returns after many years to the city that once gave him a reputation after his pig gets kidnapped.
Pig is the kind of film that when you know nothing about it you get a surprising cinematic experience. Well, you get that with most Nicolas Cage films anyway, but the narrative looks like Pig was written for Cage, and that’s it. Therefore: unexpected narrative + Cage = double the surprise!
I’m just going to give you a one-line summary and keep it short in avoidance of spoiling the crucial parts. The once best and hard as nails chef in Portland, who also had an extraordinary reputation in underground restaurant fights (???) and once disappeared into the woods resurfaces himself, raising hell when his pig gets kidnapped. I mean… WTF?! How does one green-light such a concept? How does one even conceive it to begin with? It sounds to me like writer/director Michael Sarnoski, a David Lynch fan, liked John Wick (2014), smoked a couple, and then put it together. Remember, everything is happening because someone stole his pig. How does Lynch come into play? The two Cage monologues. The first one sounds completely irrelevant – or is it? As if Rob listened to a different story and recited something from a different movie. Check Amir’s reaction that reflects the audience’s. Which brings us to the second one… the second one is all about Chef Derek’s (David Knell) close-up reaction as the story evolves. His reaction is priceless. To me, that is Lynch through and through and Sarnoski brilliantly encapsulates it.
There is so much I could say about this film, but I won’t. I’ve already said enough and it will just ruin the experience. The principal photography lasted 20 days and all cast and crew should work like a Swiss watch as the budget was tiny. And after they actually did, about an hour was taken out in the cutting room for Neon thought it was too long.
Definitely worth the watch! Will you find meaning, eventually? Only if you put your phones down, turn the lights off, and understand why Rob’s journey takes place. A journey explicated though his stories and attitude towards people and circumstances. But also… what the pig means to him and why. I hope you enjoy it!
Through the eyes of Sarah Fier, Deena experiences the horrors she had to endure and discovers how the curse of Shadyside really began.
The entertaining horror finale in the trilogy of entertaining horrors! Beware of what you read before watching it though! My beloved Ioanna urged me to watch it so here it goes. Have the same expectations as Part One and Part Two and you will not regret watching it – that is if you liked the other two. Let me start with the most important element. The similarities to 1978 – certain narrative juxtapositions – are meant to be striking to remind us that there are people out there who would still go after you with modern torches and pitchforks just because you are different than the majority. People who would ignore, even stomp on values such as diversity, inclusion, and freedom of choice. Therefore, the intention is there, that’s not what you need to be preoccupied with.
Now, the execution is what caused, from I’ve heard, all the unnecessary negativity. People who didn’t like the other two shouldn’t have watched it, to begin with. People who did like the other two, shouldn’t be moaning. Part Three refers to the same diverse yet enormously narrowed-down-Netflix audience that I’ve spoken before, so I fail to see what the same audience didn’t like. Was it the accents? The accents are not to be taken more seriously than the plot itself. The lesbian drama? Some people (or cultures) still take infidelity and homosexuality as seriously as back then. So, it’s trying. It really is. But I believe that the film’s message is as confused as its audience – consequently, is it the film to blame? And since I’m not really that trilogy’s audience, I just enjoy the confusion, turn it off, and go to bed.
Alas, the execution is that particular crowd-pleasing (?) result that, ultimately, is not Scream (1996), Friday the 13th (1980), or The Witch (2015). But don’t be overly alarmed, because it’s Fear Street! And it has its own character and it is the product of its era. Imagine you open a night club. Are you gonna play whatever song everyone is asking from you to play or are you gonna stick to the kind of music that characterises and defines your night club – and whoever the hell likes it? As a filmmaker, having to put up, unfortunately, with ignorant producers, that’s the dilemma. As audience, try to respect the hard work thousands of people have put into any project. And Leigh Janiak, and all cast and crew, have put a lot of work.
P.S. Did anyone comment on the fact that maybe there is a connection to “Fear” Street and Sarah “Fier”? Food for thought…
On ordinary day, a group of soldiers arrives from the future to warn and train people and send them to the year 2051 to fight.
Visually stunning naivety for the whole family! Past the inciting incident, one can spot a realistic approach right off the bat. An approach that will soon be replaced by a high dose of Americanism. I’m not saying this is a good or a bad thing, but I’m saying that it focuses on a particular type of audience. Why I focus on that more than other times? Because it’s meant to be addressing international audience. It’s about saving the world and not a particular country.
During recruitment and basic training, I didn’t really feel it. Stanley Kubrick set the example in 1987 and it seems that Hollywood is still struggling to evoke or balance emotions. As the first encounter with the aliens, coincidentally, John McTiernan set another example the very same year. Scrolling credits aside, the film is about two hours and ten minutes and it still feels rushed. Something a tad more comparable to Full Metal Jacket and Predator respectively, would be War of the Worlds (2005). Steven Spielberg first dealt with aliens in the masterpiece Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and, in 2005, he blew our socks off with realistically dramatic reactions to events deriving from science fiction to our deepest fears.
I’m gonna stop rumbling now though cause I sound bitter and spiteful and that was not my intention. So, I’m gonna end with a huge positive note. Director Chris McKay has brought to life Zach Dean’s script and the result is, generally, fulfilling. The film’s strongest moment is the closure of father/future-daughter relationship which is well shot and written and most definitely pays off. While at it, Yvonne Strahovski gets my round of applause here as she shines. It’s like she’s so proud of taking that role and she acts like it. She’s amazing. The Tomorrow War is a decent sci-fi summer flick with a number of standard Hollywood flaws but a great way to spend just over two hours with your favourite company – that includes your own. We may have not been attacked by aliens or saved the world yet, but we surely need a good-feel action to excite us a bit. Give it a shot. It’s worth the shot.
P.S. You need to check these trivia about J.K. Simmons and his physique:
A disgraced journalist accidentally stumbles upon a girl that performs miracles that are of unholy nature.
Too fast, too soon, too much! Screen Gems used to know about how to build up horrors, but, as it’s Sony’s property, ends up producing standard, mainstream Hollywood, spoon-fed popcorn flicks. It’s like they summed up a bunch of clichés and put them together, making absolutely sure they didn’t miss any. What really makes you wanna keep watching is Jeffrey Dean Morgan. And if you have kept watching, it gets a tad better. Actually, you’ll get to find out what the Vatican considers a miracle and how they disprove it. Is that enough to keep watching tough?
My issue with the aforementioned standard Hollywood films is that they treat them as byproducts. Cheap meat coming out of the grinder for masses the studios consider unintellectual. Taking that into consideration, the studios seem to be taking no chances to explore different types of narrative. In The Unholy, the writing, after the inciting incident, gets solid, it’s just there is nothing to watch; nothing visually stunning stands out. Plus, all the information you want, the moment you want it is there. That decimates the suspense and leaves you with cheap jump-scares and nothing more. There are nano-to-low-budget films that break the rules or even invent new ones. It’s a shame to have millions to spend, be a mid-tier player, and take no risks. Why is this happening? As said earlier, they think that their audience is dumb. And that’s not nice. Horror fans are eccentric as they are insightful. Horror fans are resilient and are always up for the challenge. Studios should respect that and should challenge us with everything they have.
Oh, did I mention that CGI ruin horrors? I’m telling you again, the story is solid but the way plot unfolds ruins it and the CGI follow as a wrecking ball and smash it down. My comments are quite bitter not because of writer/director Evan Spiliotopoulos who does a decent job, but because of producer Sam Raimi who used to dominate the genre and now he has given in to Hollywood standards and, as I’m a huge fan of his, I expect so much more because I know he can do so much more. And I hope we get to see that sooner rather than later.
Oh well… At least, devout Catholics will get (even more) confused about faith and Church. That’s something.
A group of teenagers finds themselves against an ancient evil that has plagued their town since the witch-hunt.
More entertaining than it is scary, the inciting incident is, hands down, a tribute to the late Wes Craven and Scream (1996). Kudos to director Leigh Janiak for that and the good old (somewhat) 90s feeling. Then… we come to the rest of acts 1, 2, and 3. On a serious note, the film’s initial mystery is pivotal. What is it, the curse of the witches or the conundrum of postmodern American society? Keep that question in mind… but not for the film. More likely, for a painful conversation every time your turn on the news and see young American men, women, and non-binary people having lost their lives to another young person who just happened to get a gun in their hands. But it’s neither the time nor the place for it.
On a less serious note, the answer to the question is rather simple. It’s the witch, and that’s it. Fear Street Part 1 is a concoction of elements, allegedly from the 90s, which it isn’t. It’s supposed to be scary – at times – but it isn’t. Respectively, it’s meant to be funny – at times – and even though it kinda is, it isn’t really. Think of it as… 90s for millennials? It sounds a bit unhinged; a combination of two worlds that cannot really be combined. In addition, as much as I crave for diversity, I am against the forced one. The diversity that doesn’t benefit minorities, but sells more tickets – or increases viewings. Craven, Carpenter, Romero, Raimi, etc… would never see this film as anything that remotely resembles that era. Why? Because they weren’t making movies worrying about what the social media, couch warriors and keyboard fighters might think of it afterwards. They didn’t try to please the masses. Did you like what they did? Awesome! Didn’t you like it? Awesome, again! Until the next one…
Having said that… Fear Street Part 1 is just an enjoyable Netflix-level, comedy/horror flick that will makes you forget (some of) your problems with decent acting, editing, and directing. Admittedly, I haven’t read the books but the script is a tad lazy. Gimmicks, jump scares, questionable last-minute saves, and clichés, unfortunately, reduce the suspense as well as the thrill. Maybe I am not the filmmakers’ target audience and maybe you’ll find it fascinating. If that’s the case, or whatever the case may be, I hope you enjoy it; it seems that cast and crew have gone the extra mile for it. Know what you sign up for, and you’ll be all right.
Right after losing her husband, Evelyn needs to take her kids to a safe place and find a way to use their new “weapon” of defense.
Intense, horrifying, and breathtaking first act (Day 1) that captivates before catching up with the present. From then on, and after the first “hunt”, the pace slows down but the thrill remains.
The parallel stories unfold equally well and their suspense escalates effectively, maintaining the initial thrill. And for that the credits go to the film’s editor, Michael P. Shawver. The good editor controls at all times the film’s pace and rhythm and reveals what only needs to be revealed and not what you or I would like to be revealed. The good editor also knows the footage they have, weaves the story’s plot, and defines the final cut – alongside actor/director John Krasinski, in this instance. The problem with so many match-cuts and identical parallel action is that it makes the plot more sci-fi than the alien beings themselves. That level of synchronisation, potentially for more mature audience, ruins the whatever believability a genre like that can have. Regardless, Krasinski’s greatest achievement here is directing the actors. He proves to be an actors’ director and that shows in the dramatic sequences – that’s what I think anyway. Without drama there is nothing to be thrilled about or anyone to empathise for. Speaking of, the incredible performances from Emily Blunt, Cillian Murphy, Millicent Simmons, Noah Jupe and Djimon Hounsou make you feel for each and every one of them for everything that’s happening to them. Furthermore, pay attention to the excellent use of sound… or the lack thereof!
There will always be the question regarding whether certain decisions were stupid or not, but then, if not every, almost every classic horror deals with ambiguous or moronic decisions for narrative purposes. A Quiet Place Part II respects its audience’s intelligence and offers a post-apocalyptic sci-fi/horror worthy of its predecessor that, in just over an hour and a half, excites and makes you forget pandemics, lockdowns, increased number of cases, vaccinations, and ridiculous politics.
The stories of an undercover cop, a grieving mother, and a professor facing a dangerous dilemma interweave as they find themselves fighting, in their own way, the war against drugs.
Very well-structured and paced thriller from the very beginning. The inciting incident occurs in the opening sequence and from then on, every player is introduced in minutes, making clear of who they are and what they do. The tragedy that hits Claire, every parent’s worst nightmare, is expressed vividly and tearfully by Evangeline Lilly. Respectively, Armie Hammer, Gary Oldman, Michelle Rodriguez, Greg Kinnear and Luke Evans become the characters they represent and shine on screen. Indira Varma, and Mia Kirshner, even though having small roles, add to the film’s great cast.
Crisis unfolds like a bomb waiting to explode. A pharmaceutical corporate thriller, an undercover mission, and a mother hell-bent on finding what happened to her dead son, gradually, through meticulously paced editing, start blending into one story that pins you to your seats. All three stories are equally dramatic and thrilling so when they come together you get the full force the script intended to offer. Nicholas Jarecki, the man behind Arbitrage (2012) pens that script, acts in it, and directs it and manages to attract a plethora of the aforementioned A-list actors.
I’m afraid, I’ll have to address the elephant in the room. Due to Hammer’s bad reputation and accusations the film did not perform well but let me be clear… thousands of people have worked on this film and they deserve recognition. Don’t let one name prevent you from a very decent cinematic experience. Crisis tackles very successfully, if not the most, one of the most severe plagues to have ever hit this planet. And it’s a realistic depiction of the war I mentioned above. A war that, unfortunately, seems to have no end. I hope you enjoy it.
An ordinary businessman is approached by MI6 and the CIA to help them prevent the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Shockingly brilliant! The first act’s light mood raises suspicions as to how can a horrific historic event, such as that Crisis, be approached in such a manner. The suspicions fade away in warp speed though as Benedict Cumberbatch is thoroughly enjoyable and no one can moan about his performance. Rachel Brosnahan, on the other hand, plays her part equally amazingly and together they create the illusion that thrill, British phlegmatic humour, and action will entertain you for the rest of the film… Wrong!
The light mood is replaced by a genuine Cold War thriller that, if you weren’t around at the time, it will make you feel its threat to humanity and how close our world was to be devastated (again) by a third World War. Both character and story development move the story forward, intensify the suspense, and keep you on the edge of your seats by brilliantly pacing and unfolding actual events that shocked everyone when they saw the light of day.
As Greville Wynne’s story is not well-known though, and for most people remains to be seen what will become of him, Cumberbatch makes sure not to betray that, and succeeds in doing so. His performance becomes a shock to the system, following the turn the narrative takes towards the worst. Merab Ninidze’s presence is also captivating, putting the viewer in Oleg Penkovsky’s shoes and imminent danger he’s in.
What I also found shocking upon reading about it is the fact that, on IMDb, The Courier has 1 nomination… 1 nomination! That’s it! I have been reading, writing, and researching on this industry for so many years, and I still find myself scratch my head regarding who’s getting rewarded and under what criteria. Weinstein is gone (good riddance) but it seems that the gatekeepers and/or festivals still have ambiguous criteria of selecting their nominees and winners. Don’t let that put you off though. The film opened all over the world on Greville’s birthday and Tom O’Connor’s script gives justice to the relationship between the two men. Ultimately, Dominic Cooke’s The Courier is a masterpiece and it is definitely worth your time. An absolute must-watch spy thriller!
A homeless man is going from shelter to shelter, trying to find a way to approach his estranged daughter.
In a depressing and honest way, it reveals an America that most people turn their blind eye to. One can easily extrapolate and claim that it reveals a world most people turn the blind eye to. Writer/Director Oren Moverman, the man behind The Messenger (2009), Rampart (2011), and The Dinner (2017) does an extensive research on homelessness in New York and brings to our attention an issue that we walk past daily no matter where we live. Richard Gere, a man who is in real life an advocate for the homeless, fully understands Moverman’s vision and commits 100% to the character, delivering a totally different than usual performance. Cinematographer Bobby Bukowski frames him through reflections, amongst bystanders, and from a distance (also careful when to go close), and shows without telling how George positions himself within society. Respectively, editor Alex Hall leaves those protracted zoom-in and zoom-out shots uncut, making the audience “look” for a significant amount of time what the bystanders don’t – parallelism with ourselves that have probably done the same in real life. Excellent example of mise-en-scène and how it creates meaning.
The off-screen space though also speaks volumes. Very interestingly, most of the times, you are listening to dialogues that come from an unspecified location. With a decent surround one can tell if it’s from behind, left, or right but it is of no importance. What matters is that it is happening, George listens to it as we do, but as he pays no attention to who says what, it stays out of the frame. A personal interpretation is that all this diegetic sound is pointing at how loud and verbose the big city is and how little it matters to someone who doesn’t know if or where is going to find his next meal and bed.
I highly recommend this film, but a warning needs to be issued. The film feels like one act. Something that someone should have probably notice in postproduction and shave off about half an hour. Time out of Mind feels endless as, unfortunately, nothing is happening. Ben Vereen and Jena Malone support him to their best abilities but their role is limited. Once again, unfortunately, what at first seems to be an extensive character development, stagnates the story development, and can lose the audience’s attention with its inactivity.
Dom and his “family”reunite once more as his unknown to everyone else younger brother has teamed up with a terrorist group to initiate a weapon of mass destruction.
Muscles, guns, explosions, supercars, and spies… all in the mix for a global audience of specific age. F9 did what most of its predecessors also did in previous years. It exceeded every unrealistic expectation! From The Fast and the Furious (2001) to Fast and Furious 8 (2017), whoever has followed the saga, has seen the gang first forming with the intent to steal and sell VCR’s and DVD players, and ending up driving against submarines. Each installment has been seen getting more and more crazy and the level of believability has been dropping exponentially. Now, it’s facing a free fall. A free fall of 2 hour and 25 minutes; the longest Fast & Furious in the franchise.
Where do I begin… Dom’s initial refusal to participate has been a cliché for a couple of decades now. One would expect that in the third decade of the 21st century writers would have moved on. Apparently not. Then, as the previous films did, this one also introduces a new weapon and/or technology. Like an uneducated Sesame Street, here, get to know about not even laughable rocket science and not even ridiculous electromagnetism. I’m not even gonna touch on the “hacking” parts. As for this type of slapstick comedy, some might find it funny so I’m not gonna go into it.
To cut the long story short, lets talk fast, without fury, about the driving. The driving and the chemistry between Vin Diesel, the late Paul Walker (RIP), Michelle Rodriguez, and Jordana Brewster is what made most of us fall in love with the first three or four films. Both of them are lost now. The sky-high level of implausibility, and therefore unfathomable CGI scenes, destroyed both. The filmmakers are now milking the cow, are competing with The Expendables (2010), and like most of these films, what massively irritates me is that they are undermining people’s intelligence. No film should ever undermine its audience’s intelligence. And that’s what F9 does. What was the amazing Charlene Theron thinking? A villain that didn’t even sweat. As if the non-existing, so far, Dom’s brother (John Cena) is not a gimmick enough, the rest of the antagonists are just shambles. Helen Mirren and Kurt Russel are there for the easy money, I get it. The rest… I don’t!
To summarise, maybe, and that’s just a speculation, if you are around 12 y/o you might find it exciting. But I hope you don’t so, maybe, Hollywood producers reevaluate, and learn how to respect their audience. By all means, if you are into VFX and the MTV style of filmmaking give it go. It will make you forget the unpleasant times we are currently experiencing, anyway. But know what you sign up for. Justin Lin is a respectful director/producer but goes for the money. I believe, after the franchise is gone, that we’ll see something amazing from him. Something that will beautifully surprise both in terms of character and story development. Finally, I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it: Michael Rooker is a great actor and should be getting more screening time in everything he’s in.
A mysterious man gets a job at an armoured vehicle company that transports money just to find the people responsible for a crime that cost him dearly.
Crowd-pleasing and entertaining, Wrath of Man makes a decent remake of the French thriller Cash Track (2004). Fourth collaboration between the actor Jason Statham and director/producer Guy Richie that proves to be time and time again a recipe for success – at least financial. What you need to keep in mind before or while watching it is that the film is not to be taken very seriously by any stretch of the imagination. It probably represents the exact opposite of the cinematic realism that film theorists argue about (for decades). Let’s start with with basics: No one heals and reaches peak condition that fast from multiple gun shots – if they survive. Also, no one achieves so many headshots that easily. Furthermore, no one would come up with that plan as it is likely to fail in more ways than I can count. So, deliberately ignoring the film’s unrealistic scenario, let’s focus on the positives.
Statham is still kicking a$$ which makes him the right man in front of the camera. Richie still finds intriguing, non-linear ways to develop the plot from the story which makes him the right man behind the camera. Holt McCallany, Josh Hartnett, Scott Eastwood, Andy Garcia, and Niamh Algar make great a addition to the cast (comment to follow on that). Finally, what everyone was hoping to be decent is actually more than decent: the action. Wrath of Man is a series of action-packed sequences that satisfy the neurons and neuroglia of the animalistic part of our brain.
I will never mind Statham not changing his accent. I live in Derby and he’s from Derbyshire so, I wouldn’t want him to speak any other way. I actually love it! Generally though, and that’s probably because I am not a kid anymore, I do mind the hero/ine not to have a decent antagonist or people surrounding him. Which is the case here. The film’s great cast (not just the ones mentioned above) is massively overshadowed by his presence, making him look he’s leagues above everyone else. His crew, the enemy’s, and the security company’s have nothing on him, something that exponentially reduces the suspense. Eastwood’s character had a lot of potential to be a great psycho and, consequently, great villain. That is not the case though. Having said that, the guys guarding the safe are tough as nails but their role is limited. Something else that would potentially make us empathise with ‘H’ a bit more is the underdeveloped drama he had to endure. Unfortunately, it took the back seat. As a last and trivial note, it’s interesting to listen to British humour, in American accents.
To sum it up, it’s very enjoyable, don’t get caught up in the details (like I do), and spend a couple of hours watching a funny and thrilling heist with a lot of shooting and punchlines.
In a dystopian future, where the police are judges, juries, and executioners, Judge Dredd and a rookie are sent to take down a violent gang that is dealing an extremely dangerous drug.
Misunderstood yet highly entertaining! Dredd, makes you forget whatever is happening out there but this was not the case when it was released. Back then, it evoked some mixed feelings and, unfortunately, the vast majority didn’t appreciate it. The rest of us signed a petition for a sequel to no avail. Times have changed, we have moved on and so have the actors. Karl Urban is leading The Boys (2019) now and he couldn’t care less about a role that he doesn’t show his face and people doubt it. Having said that, as far as I read recently, he wouldn’t mind taking on the role if offered. It won’t be though. What’s more, it’s interesting watching Olivia Thirlby coming out of her comfort zone shooting everything and everyone up and the transformed but wonderful Lena Headey running the vicious gang.
Dredd remains loyal to the graphic novel with the city blocks’ names, the judge’s helmet and the golden chain in MaMa’s penthouse, the “fatties”, and, of course, the Clint Eastwood voice tribute to stand out. For those who are not aware, the character is partially based on Clint Eastwood’s “Dirty Harry” so, the voice will always be that reminder.
Pete Travis, a director who deserves a lot more spotlight [see also Omagh (2004) and Vantage Point (2008)] as mentioned above, has deeply understood the anti-hero’s nature and the dystopian futuristic”cyberpunk” world, giving us a final cut that, we, the fans deeply enjoyed and, unfortunately, won’t see more of it. The reasons vary: Came out in a bad time? People didn’t really appreciate it? Studios saw only numbers and didn’t care about its quality? Whatever your pick is, it’s a shame really.
I just wanted to remind you of it. After all, that’s what every dystopia is; a reminder. And, if you haven’t watched it, knock yourselves out! It’s quite the experience.