396 replies to this topic

[DaveBond21]

Licence to Kill (1989)

 

One of the best Bond movies - an excellent, deliberately paced plot, believable characters and great stunts, this is up there with the best. Dalton is perfect as 007 and Robert Davi is certainly one of the greatest villains.

 

The music is great. Also, should mention that this must be the movie with the greatest use of the James Bond theme. While the locations aren't the most exotic, this is a fascinating thriller with a great cast.

 

I need to re-do my list of favourite Bonds!

[thecasinoroyale]

'Interstellar' (2014)

 

I’ll put it out there in my first paragraph; I didn’t like this film very much at all and won’t waste time trying to find good things and point out the bad where I don’t need to. I don’t like to spend time on the negative aspects, and I find just highlighting some areas will get my point over.

 

I don’t like Matthew McConaughey and can’t think of a film I tolerated with him in. I tell a lie, I do – ‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’. But then he’s a supporting player and not in it much so that’s fine. Leading a cast in a film that spans 2 hours 50 mins is just a nightmare for me to tolerate his irritating accent (not American in general, just the way he talks) and the way he just comes over. It’s my own psychosis and I tried to overlook it but I couldn’t, and so that’s not going to help me enjoy a film like this. Michael Cain is a saving grace in his small but important role, but even Anne Hathaway I found to be very flat and boring, which is a shame. So with a cast that didn’t win me over and didn’t really engage me, this was doomed from the start and just got worse when they left Earth.

 

To put it simply, I do like long films that take time to tell a good story, work on character development and are generally well paced. Here, this just felt too long. And stretched out in the middle to give us dangers and expeditions that didn’t need to happen in the large scheme of things. As for the finale, that just bored me and went too off the chart. I understand it’s sci-fi, and I understand there is a strong message underneath it all about family and relationships, but the finale just bored me. Not confusing, but just…unnecessary and trying to be too smart.

 

That will be it for negatives – the flat cast, the over-long story and the odd finale. I've seen sci-fi done better, more exciting, more moving and more entertaining. 'Gravity' and 'Star Wars' spring to mind straight away. But anyway, let me hit some positive.

 

The visual effects, while not Oscar worthy IMO, are good and nice to look out. Hollywood really seems to get what space looks like in many films (‘Gravity’ springs to mind), and here we are treated to some visually stunning worlds that thankfully retain a lot familiarity with Earth and not made to be something fantastical like ‘Star Wars’. Our twin robot NASA companions TARS (Bill Irwin) and CASE (Josh Stewart) are wonderfully designed and are fascinating to watch on screen. Everything is very easy on the eye and beautiful to see. With a haunting soundtrack by Hans Zimmer that is perfect to convey emotions via music and stunning cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema who really captures every sequence and location with wonderful camera shot, the crew really know their stuff under Christopher Nolan, and this is a film far more technically pleasing than entertaining.

 

Also, the first act on Earth was more engrossing to me than the space sequences. Some decent acting by all (including MattMa, who I don’t knock as a good actor, he’s not great) that convey some real hard-hitting emotional sequences alongside young Mackenzie Foy. It’s heart-breaking to see how this family survive, and the sacrifices made for the greater good, and that was really good to see. It just seemed to get lost in space, except the few video messages that continued to emphasise the pain of missing your family and the fear of possibly never seeing them again and writing wrongs. Regardless of the genre, humanity is always a triumph and powerful theme to use if done correctly, and it’s done correctly here.

 

So while this may not be the review many people like or agree with, and I think it’s the first film of the big ones of the year I’ve not enjoyed. ‘Dumb And Dumber To’ was worse actually. But then again I simply refer to a wonderful quote by Clint Eastwood’s Harry Callahan:

 

“Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one.”

[DaveBond21]

Goldeneye (1995)

 

20 years on and still enjoyable as ever.

 

Looking back, there are far too many PC references about women's roles in society and Bond's role in the world, but this is a great adventure, with amazing stunts, excellent characters and some good lines. Poor score lets it down.

[SecretAgentFan]

A quick fantasy rush led me to revisit KRULL which I did not like on first viewing many years ago but found extremely entertaining (with the interesting "widow of the web"-sequence being surprisingly serious) and

DRAGONSLAYER which is really a fabulous film, extremely underrated, absolutely wonderful.

 

Then I re-watched THE BLACK DAHLIA, a De Palma movie which left me cold the first time as well - but now, again many years later, I could appreciate it for what it was: a delicate DePalma view of LA´s depravity, mixed with high doses of melodrama and a surprisingly touching love triangle.  Loved it!

[x007AceOfSpades]

Then I re-watched THE BLACK DAHLIA, a De Palma movie which left me cold the first time as well - but now, again many years later, I could appreciate it for what it was: a delicate DePalma view of LA´s depravity, mixed with high doses of melodrama and a surprisingly touching love triangle.  Loved it!

The Black Dahlia gets a lot of unwarranted hate or distaste. I haven't seen it in years, but I definitely wouldn't mind watching it again. I do remember it being very good and expertly directed by De Palma. Really loved how De Palma captured Los Angeles for that time period.

[SecretAgentFan]

Yes, it´s really well done.  Probably, critics hated it because the film did not delve into the real Dahlia case but used elements of it for its own plot.

[tdalton]

Perfect Sense (2011)

 

An absolutely brilliant film depicting the potential end of the human race as an epidemic wipes out each of the five senses, one at a time, starting with the sense of smell.  Eva Green and Ewan McGregor star as Sarah and Michael, respectively, as a couple who fall in love while the epidemic sweeps the globe.  Both Green and McGregor are superb in their respective roles and do a fine job of anchoring the film while also giving the viewer a window into just how the world is falling apart due to the epidemic.

[dtuba]

Watched Star Trek 4 : The Voyage Home last night. Nimoy directed and gave himself some of the very best one liners in this film. And yes, I got a little weepy-eyed at the end when he says goodbye to Sarek.

[glidrose]

Then I re-watched THE BLACK DAHLIA, a De Palma movie which left me cold the first time as well - but now, again many years later, I could appreciate it for what it was: a delicate DePalma view of LA´s depravity, mixed with high doses of melodrama and a surprisingly touching love triangle.  Loved it!

The Black Dahlia gets a lot of unwarranted hate or distaste. I haven't seen it in years, but I definitely wouldn't mind watching it again. I do remember it being very good and expertly directed by De Palma. Really loved how De Palma captured Los Angeles for that time period.

 
 

Yes, it´s really well done.  Probably, critics hated it because the film did not delve into the real Dahlia case but used elements of it for its own plot.

I saw it on first release. The problem I and many other people had is trying to understand why the original author and filmmakers bothered using the original true-life crime only to go off on a tangent with a bizarre and ridiculous solution that clearly was not true? I remain mixed about the film. Not one of De Palma's best.

[Safari Suit]

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

Wanted to watch one of these following Nimoy's passing. Wasn't in the mood for the first one, felt like the second was a bit too overfamiliar, the third too much of a sequel to the second and the fourth the one I'd watched too recently. And the fifth is, well, Star Trek V*

 

I kind of wish I'd gone with II or IV, overfamiliar or not, because to be honest this one isn't as enjoyable as I'd remembered. Bad? No. But not really the kind of Star Trek film I go for. For me the appeal of the original series and movies rests in its mix of provocative and innovative science-fiction storytelling, exciting adventure, great characterisation and socio-political allegorising. This one does get the latter down to a T, with its clever and well executed Klingon/Soviet Union parallel. The characterisation isn't too bad either, though I don't feel this really shows anyone at their best. The first two, though? Not so much. It's awfully talky and for much of it pretty uncinematic, with meeting after meeting after conference after trial after ceremony.

 

This also seemed to be aimed a little too directly at the convention set. There's only so much Klingon politics and Romulan culture I want to hear about in a two hour film; mythologising works fine for a series like Deep Space Nine, but in a film like this it feels a little self-important. As much as I personally feel they've kind of thrown the baby out with the bathwater with the Abrams films, I can see how after one too many films like this the reboot was somewhat inevitable.

 

I'm being kind of negative, but I still enjoyed it. It's a decent, dignified send off for these characters, with a touching final scene. The production values are above average for the series, and some of the effects have aged well. In particular, I must say the scene where Spock uncharacteristically snaps works really well. It's understated, yet for my money a million times effective than the histrionic Spock scene at the end of Into Darkness.

 

So, decent, but mostly one for fans.

 

*Full disclosure; as a child I loved Star Trek V. Can't really tell you why.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Fury' (2014)

 

After director David Ayer’s previous film, ‘Sabotage’, left a sour taste in my mouth, his name was pretty much forgotten to me and it was only AFTER watching ‘Fury’ it clicked; this had come from the man who had pretty much made a mockery out of Arnold Schwarzenegger. All is forgiven, just, with this war film that doesn’t break the mould, but certainly adds nice new elements to the WW2 genre thanks to a fine cast, some brilliantly staged action and a fresh twist on the clichés of the past.

 

War films, primarily, need to focus on a unit; a team; a band of brothers/sisters who take you on a journey through Hell and beyond. We want to see interesting, ordinary characters pull together against the odds (we still need our heroes against evil) to triumph either in battle or in their own soul to overcome the horror of war and their own demons. Here we have our unit, and refreshingly they spend most of their time in and around a Sherman tank that acts as their home and safe retreat in battle. I found the creaks, rumbles and mechanical lumbering of the steel beast rather impressive to see and it made for a great new spin on war films that often focused on troops on foot.

 

Brad Pitt won me over with his portrayal as Wardaddy, the staff sergeant who leads his men on the battlefield with a firm command, steely gaze and strict duty to eradicate the Nazi under any circumstances. He shows a tough resolve without coming across unlikeable, and the few moments we see his tough outer shell crack is played wonderfully without being hammy and overly-dramatic. It’s clear that Pitt brings a great deal of understanding to a man he envisages lives for nothing except the end goal of winning, and surviving, the war.

 

Logan Lerman is our “normal” man, the one who represents the younger, fearful and morally conflicted soldier dragged into fighting and killing as so many other young men were drafted in to do. With a strong supporting cast of Shia BaBeouf, Michael Pena and John Bernthal who all play the typical soldiers – the humane one, the understanding one and the tough one – it’s a shame they are not expanded on more, because when they are all together and operating as a team, it makes for exciting, engaging and emotional sequences. They all manage to convey a front that they use to survive war, by almost convincing themselves this is what they are born to do – to fight, to kill and to survive. But, again, when their defences come down and they bond as a unit, it makes for some great viewing and you really feel the camaraderie.

 

As this plays out more as a war-based drama, exploring the bonds made and relationships forged in a variety of ways and circumstances, the action is also generous but never too much. Seeing and hearing the tanks blast and rip their way through buildings, fields, woodland and Nazi soldiers is, admittedly, rather thrilling thanks to the attack on the senses. Bullet holes steam, debris flies and tanks crush bodies and the Earth below effortlessly. The violence is gruesome; not as brutal and real as ‘Saving Private Ryan’ (can anything be?), but never the less it is shocking and powerful. Limbs fly off, heads explode, bodies are riddled and faces are caved in. As for the final 30mins, it’s a barnstorming assault of what we can only imagine war can be; exciting, tragic, tense and thrilling.

 

On the whole, it is a typical war-film; you’ve seen the rag-tag unit before, you’ve seen the father/son bonding, you’ve seen the bloody battles and you’ve seen the tense ending before in a variety of other films. But I think it’s comfortable ground to tread to deliver something entertaining, which is what these films are solely made to do; entertain. There is enough new twists and takes on the old formula to keep it familiar, but new.

 

Thanks to a strong story that is simple enough to follow but fleshed out with great drama, this never exceeds its 2hours 10mins running time and flows smoothly without any lag. Every scene is important, every conversation is relevant and every burst of the canon is crucial as the inevitable looms ahead as they advance through Germany. You’ll laugh, you’ll cheer, you’ll wince and you’ll think; just what a great war movie should have you doing.

[Professor Pi]

Kingsmen

 

Was looking forward to this and it was enjoyable up to about 2/3 of the way through.  When it gets to the church scene, it just loses the audience with an unnecessary amount of careless violence.  While the plot point might have been necessary to explain the villain's grand plan, and to pass the torch from one character to another, it leaves you with no sympathy for said character.  And the way the filmmakers glorified it, Tarantinoesque, just undermined the first 90 minutes of the movie.  Too bad too because the final battle was pretty good, albeit very derivative of Bond.  I was a bit surprised to see it was directed by Matthew Vaughn, of X-Men First Class fame.  The cast is strong too--Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Samuel L. Jackson. 

 

I've tried not to spoil the plot synopsis with vague descriptions in my review for those who wish to see it, but if you're not inclined to begin with, I wouldn't bother.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Presumed Innocent' (1990)

 

As a lover of great legal drama/thillers, this had always passed me by as I was never sure what it was about. Something along the lines of the seedy thriller ‘Tightrope’ from Clint Eastwood popped into my head; a good man walking the line of right and wrong as he delves into the sordid nightlife of society. I was wrong however, and in light of recent events surrounding Harrison Ford’s plane crash, I wanted to watch a film from the great man. Sadly, the man still is great but this film wasn’t anything I had hoped.

 

On the whole, it’s a very average affair (literally) – the basic template of a man slowly being framed for murder of a woman he had an affair with, and soon facing the nightmare of losing everything he has tried to build while attempting to prove his innocence. Standard legal drama narrative. While the film starts well, establishing a nice cast with the likes of Ford, Brian Dennehy, Bonnie Bedelia and the wonderfully silver-tongued Raúl Juliá, all who are very engaging and engrossing on screen, all set up the scene for your usual tense, gritty and powerful display of right vs wrong, truth vs lies.

 

But nothing really comes of it and everything seems very placid in places, with no real moments of tension or nail-biting drama. The plot rolls on and we are spoon fed the next set-up so we can keep up with who deceives who, and why, and what motive they had, before a little more courtroom drama, and then hopping back out to explore the character’s and their battle of demons. While the acting calibre here is more than generous, they never really are given much to go on, and during the second half of the film, Ford is sadly reduced to not doing much, but always watchable and likeable.

 

I had an idea of the outcome not too long into the film, as with the handful of characters we see, it can only be a couple to be fair. But still, a few twists and turns and motives are thrown up to keep us on our toes, but as far as legal tension goes, this doesn’t offer much sadly and falls a little flat towards the end, but Ford and Bedelia share a nice finale together which just affirms their status as great actors working with a meaningful story.

[Matt_13]

Kingsmen

Was looking forward to this and it was enjoyable up to about 2/3 of the way through. When it gets to the church scene, it just loses the audience with an unnecessary amount of careless violence. While the plot point might have been necessary to explain the villain's grand plan, and to pass the torch from one character to another, it leaves you with no sympathy for said character. And the way the filmmakers glorified it, Tarantinoesque, just undermined the first 90 minutes of the movie. Too bad too because the final battle was pretty good, albeit very derivative of Bond. I was a bit surprised to see it was directed by Matthew Vaughn, of X-Men First Class fame. The cast is strong too--Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Samuel L. Jackson.

I've tried not to spoil the plot synopsis with vague descriptions in my review for those who wish to see it, but if you're not inclined to begin with, I wouldn't bother.

Yeah, even with the justification of the violence in the church scene (racists, etc) I still felt a tiny bit uncomfortable with the aggression and, yes, senselessness of the violence in the scene. It's still a brilliantly executed set piece, and again I didn't feel a lot of sympathy for any of the victims, but I felt a little dirty watching it for sure. Still, I'd absolutely recommend Kingsman, though it's far less Bond driven than I had hoped.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Exodus: Gods And Kings' (2014)

 

From visionary director Ridley Scott comes another interpretation of religious history in the guise of Moses and his quest to free the Hebrew slaves from Egypt in a mass exodus. Careful not to throw a definitive “God” in your face while telling this story, Scott manages to throw up many moments that we, and the characters, question just what we actually believe in; what we put our faith in, and what the almighty persona of “God” really is. All the while however he delivers a rousing, if a little poorly paced, fantasy/biblical story.

 

I love historical films that show us a time without machine guns, super-heroes, modern technology and all the other nonsense we get. Stripping it all back, we are treated to visually stunning landscapes, breath-taking glimpses into the past long forgotten and characters that rely on strong development and a memorable journey rather than being disposable around a CGI world. During this 150min slog through Egypt’s most famous chapter in religious history, I felt at times we were treated to a new adaptation of Scott’s former work. ‘Gladiator’ was notable in the first act in which our hero, Moses/Maximus, a mighty general and respected man, soon loses that rank and respect under the rule of Ramesses/Commodus and is reduced to a mere shell of the man he used to be and faces death. Moving on a little, we then visit ‘Robin Hood’ where Moses/Robin starts to see what he must to do free his people being subjected to a life of misery and bands together a small army of men who he trains and inspires who then set about using bows, arrows and swords to attack and bring down the tyranny of Ramesses/King John.

 

Not that this was bad, it was just something I felt was quite ironic during the story from the same director. Christian Bale gives a far better performance here than he has recently in some films (looking at you ‘American Hustle’) as he seems to excel in roles where he can really get his teeth into the mind of someone torn between duty, between belief, between right and wrong. I do like Bale, and was glad to see him here really draw us in to believe the character of Moses as a future leader and prophet. The marketing makes out he is an armour wearing warrior leading his people to freedom; far from it. He is weary, run-down and heavily bearded for most of the film and wears makeshift armour through the final acts, using powerful words and internal struggle as his weapons rather than a blade.

 

Joel Edgerton is also brilliant as Ramesses; again, delivering a performance based on emotion, inner conflict and faith rather than shouting, stabbing and scowling, and other bombastic traits many of these power-hungry types convey. He never comes across as the typical “villain”, and everything he does is driven by an unseen power; a role almost forced upon him that you can see from the start he’s not comfortable with. Edgerton is a brilliant actor and says a great deal with his physical appearance as well as his voice, which here is chillingly efficient and haunting, like a snake; calm and collected but sharp with venom when he strikes. Both actors work really well together, and with a strong if a little under-used supporting cast in the likes of Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley and Aaron Paul. We actually spend more time with the unknown cast, which isn’t bad because they are also convincing and good in their roles, like Maria Valverde, Ben Mendelsohn and John Turturro.

 

The CGI, which I allow more in these films to create a world pretty much non-existent, is used really well and effective in this story. Egypt is a living and breathing world, and really detailed in its creation, the armies are effective but never sprawling to the point it’s unbelievable. The real highlight however is the 10 plagues; they honestly are at times frightening, grizzly, tense and dramatic. All created beautifully to play a vital part in the transition for Moses to become a leader amongst men, we see the devastation they bring to full effect. The plague of the first-born deaths is truly difficult to watch in very shocking and emotional scenes I found very disturbing, but in a good way as it was done so well. Great performances again, especially from Edgerton who sums up his duty perfectly in the following scenes.

 

While the first act introduces us to our characters well, the second half seems to slow down and I found it dragged a little too much for me, but picked up again once the plagues arrived for some exciting and thrilling sequences once Moses and Ramesses had a clear motive and plan of action to carry out, and many of the moments we may know from the Bible, such as the parting of the Red Sea, are done with just a little touch of new creativity so it’s relevant, but never defining a certain faith and interpretation you wish to believe.

 

I’d certainly give the rumoured 4hr cut a go, because Scott always delivers more in the extended cuts of his film, and this could certainly benefit from a more even approach to things rather than the un-even editing presented here to probably conform to hit the running time. It’s a sprawling, visually stunning affair that you wouldn’t expect less of from Ridley Scott considering his previous historical epics, but on the whole this is one of his better ones with only a few bumps along the way that is more to do with pacing than anything else. The story is simple, the characters are interesting, the performances are spot-on, the soundtrack is thrilling and the visual effects are awesome.

[S K Y F A L L]

Finally seen THE INTIMIDATION GAME and was blown away by it.

[DaveBond21]

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

 

...as part of my Bond marathon that I started in early January.

 

I enjoyed it even though the start and end are very action-oriented.

 

I loved - the scenes in Hamburg, especially knocking Gupta's satellite over, Dr Kaufmann, the car chase, every time Bond annoys Carver, the motorbike chase and the drop using the Carver banner.

[thecasinoroyale]

(Glad you liked 'The Imitation Game' S K Y F A L L - I loved it also)

 

'Samurai Cop' (1991)

 

This really IS one of those films so terribly made and executed, but with so much passion and desire for what it’s trying to do, that it comes over as being one of the few films fit for the title “so bad, it’s good”.

 

We’ve got wooden acting from the beefcake that is Matt Hannon, over-acting from the cherub faced Robert Z’Dar, care-free acting from cool dude Mark Frazer and can’t be bothered acting from everyone else. BUT, they bring out characters so memorable in their own way, their acting calibre is more real than any current Oscar winner out there! This film deserves the tagline that Jackie Chan's 'Supercop' used: "Meet the cop that can't be stopped!"

 

The editing, both visual and audio, was done by a drunk because there are disjointed cuts, strange dialogue and diegetic noise that doesn’t fit the scene it’s used in, and don’t get me started on the strange over-dubbing of many actors and overly-exaggerated fight noises and hits! It’s like a 1980s video game brawler come to life, thanks also to a wonderfully tacky theme tune sounding like a ‘Street Fighter’ reject.

 

With a simple plot, it’s not hard to follow, and there is very few limitations to what our director Amir Shervan has, because at times the violence is pretty grim (severed heads, throats and limbs a plenty) and even torture by boiling water. Of course, when you add this with the overly dramatic reactions of our actors, wonderfully fake dummies and limbs and dramatic music, it all becomes laughable for the wrong reasons! Camera shots are loose, focus is neglected, framing is out the door and the action scenes are just ridiculously staged and carried out.

 

It’s a real cheap man’s man movie; bad ass monologues with enough mother-f***ers and s**t-heads thrown in for good measure, we have sexy saxophone music for the copious amounts of erotica sex scenes with plenty of flesh on show, and we have handguns that haven’t even had the cap-gun sound effect removed when firing. This is the best university 1st year movie project out there, at least that’s how it comes across; a bunch of lads making a dumb action film but couldn’t be too bothered about making it crisp and worthy before submitting it.

 

And we can’t even start on Matt Hannon’s wig, brought in for additional sequences filmed after he had cut his hair. But what gets me, is these wig scenes make up most of the backbone to the action sequences, so what the hell DIDN’T they shoot to warrant bringing him back? The wig is fantastically shite, so obviously fake and just needs to be seen to be believed – especially when another actor pulls it off during a fight scene and forcefully pushes it back onto his head to try and cover it up. Too late.

 

It’s great fun for ALL the wrong reasons, so don’t consider my rating up there with the other 3.5 star films I’ve reviewed. This is a 3.5 star rating that only applies to ‘Samurai Cop’ because it’s so bad, it really is so good and I can’t WAIT to see, hopefully, the same tacky crap in ‘Samurai Cop 2’!

[DaveBond21]

The World is not Enough (1999)

 

I always stick up for this one. Once again I enjoyed the PTS (although the actual pre-titles should have been Bilbao only). The boat chase is amazing and a lot of work went into staging it.

 

The Q scene is good, and the Bond girls are fine. I disagree that the film's problems lie in the melodrama or emotional side; I actually think it's the bland action scenes that are to blame, in particular the stand-off in the nuclear base, the caviar factory scene and the climax.

 

I sometimes wonder what it would be like if a Bond movie finished off with something spectactular like the PTS - the only movies that reallyfinish with a bang are Dr No, FRWL and Octopussy.

[tdalton]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)

 

Checked this one out a morbid curiosity to see what Platinum Dunes did to one of the staples of my childhood entertainment.  I must admit that I was surprised that it wasn't the complete and total trainwreck that I was expecting it to be.  Now, with that said, it's still not a good film by any measure, but it's also not nearly as bad as it could have been.

 

Probably the biggest, and perhaps only, plus the film has going for it is the actors doing the motion-capture and voice work for the turtles.  They're actually very good and manage to capture some semblance of the feel of the original films and TV show while also updating it for a new audience.

 

Aside from that, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is about what you'd expect from a Michael Bay production.  As usual, the biggest problem is the CGI overload.  None of the action sequence feel like they have any real depth or weight to them because all we see are computer animated turtles battling it out with a computer animated Shredder who looks more like a cyborg than anything resembling the Shredder of old.  This version of Shredder left a lot to be desired and doesn't even really stand out as the villain of the piece like he should.  

 

And, good lord, the amount of slow-motion shots in this film was aggravating.  Reminded me very much of 300: Rise of an Empire.  Suffice to say, that's not a compliment.

 

1.5/5

[DaveBond21]

Die Another Day (2002)

 

If you don't like this movie, I'm not going to argue with you. It started off OK, if over-scored and with a lot of noise. The first 40 minutes are pretty good. Jinx is a big mistake, but there are alot of ideas here that are a big mistake. They tried to cram in too much namely:-

 

- The invisible car

- Climbing down a glass building

- Ice Palace melting

- Laser machine fight

- Car Chase on Ice

- Speeder racing

- Huge laser from outer space

- Clinging to a melting cliff face

- Surfing a Tsunami

- Fighting in a burning out-of-control plane

- Starting a spinning helicopter mid-air

 

Normally a Bond movie's finale would feature maybe two of these elements, but to cram them all in was absurd.

 

The silly gimmicks like the virtual reality training, were a waste of time too.

 

I enjoyed the PTS, the Cuba scenes, Raoul, stealing the grape, the sword fight, but really, after we've seen how they toned things down with the Daniel Craig entries, it really makes Die Another Day look ridiculous.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[x007AceOfSpades]

Chappie - 2015 - 1/5 - Directed by Neill Blomkamp - starring Dev Patel and Hugh Jackman

Neill Blomkamp's Chappie or: The Ridiculously Overlong Die Antwoord Music Video is really a mess of a film. It's all over the place - not knowing what it's seeking or rather striving to be. If there was ever meant to be any sort of deep meaning, or literal message in Chappie it's long gone. It never knows if it's trying to be an action thriller, a film ultimately about identity and family, or just an entertaining popcorn flick. It's definitely Blomkamp's worst film.

 

Based on Blomkamp's 2003 short, Tetra Vaal, Chappie is set in the year 2018 where crime is at an all time high in Johannesburg, South Africa. To combat the criminals and slowly decrease the crime rates, Deon Wilson (Dev Patel) designs a semi-A.I. robot to aid the police. They are called Scouts and eventually are mass produced by a company known as Tetravaal. After Scout 22 takes a high amount of damage in police duty, he is scheduled to be destroyed. However Deon has just created a new software that will allow the Scouts to be able to think just as humans. Tetravaal CEO, Michelle Bradley (Sigourney Weaver) has refused this plan of Deon's.

 

However, Deon still presses forward, with intents on testing it on Scout 22. Meanwhile, three gangsters, Ninja, Yolandi, and Amerika (Watkin Tudor Jones, Yolandi Visser, and Jose Pablo Cantillo, respectively) owe a major debt to a gangster, $20Million, and attack Deon with the intentions of using him to program the scout to aid them in a heist. Thus, Chappie, the free thinking scout is born. On the other side, Vincent Moore (Hugh Jackman), who's MOOSE A.I. design has been pushed aside at Tetravaal, he looks to sabotage Deon and the scout program, in order to have a mass production of the MOOSE robots ready.

 

Chappie certainly isn't a great film, and the mix-match marketing certainly proves this. The marketing never could truly sell the film. While it appeared that it would continue to explore some themes and political undertones we've seen in Blomkamp's previous two films, they are still present in Chappie, though merely briefly. The film really suffers from an identity crisis. While it definitely has Blomkamp's gritty, realistic touch, it suffers be still being unrecognizable and being a standout among films that feature a similar idea. In the end, Neill Blomkamp took the idea of a free-thinking robot, which has been explored in the past, and just really put his own spin on it. Except his spin wasn't needed, nor was it remotely necessary and satisfying.

 

It fails at being dramatic, it fails at being humorous, it fails at being at action packed. Overall, Chappie fails. I was actually hoping there would be some good action present, but it was nothing I haven't seen, whether it's from Blomkamp or in another film. It's far from being action packed. There's maybe two-three action scenes present, and they are widely spread apart, and when they happen - you realize you're still actually watching a film and not a shitty two hour extended music video for Die Antwoord.

 

If you're still reading this, then you'll obviously gather that I didn't enjoy Ninja and Yolandi's performance at all. I get it, they're there to add some possible cultural diversity, make the film more fun, etc. Instead, they end up being just as annoying as the ridiculously long AMC theaters animation intros that go on for too fucking long. TL;DR, Die Antwoord should stick to making shitty fucking music. Dev Patel and Hugh Jackman are the strongest of the cast, though they don't particularly have a script that's equally worth it. Patel is the more dramatic actor, but when the film sets a dramatic tone, it just never fits. Jackman is the jealous employee who pretty much ends up becoming the villain, because why not. He did have a sweet Aussie mullet though.

 

Sharlto Copley was terrific as the robot, Chappie. In the very, very short beginning. Once Chappie hung around Ninja too long and started to act "gangsta", that's when I pretty much dropped this film and started at my phone waiting for the credits. However, Copley's motion capture and voice over work is very top notch and incredible stuff from the actor. As a whole, I just couldn't care for the robot, as with everybody else. No one was really worth investing time or interest in.

 

In the end, Chappie was a pile of crap. Definitely wasn't worth seeing in IMAX - as it's probably the worst IMAX DMR release I've ever seen.

 

I am though, legitimately nervous about Blomkamp's Alien film.

 

Kingsman: The Secret Service - 2015 - 1/5 - Directed by Matthew Vaughn - starring Colin Firth and Samuel L. Jackson

Kingsman is essentially Kick-Ass with a spy/espionage mod on it. It's very self-aware and over-the-top like Vaughn's 2010 film. It's a spy film for the ADHD generation and an extremely big step back from his previous film, X-Men: First Class. It also doesn't help that I don't think Mark Miller is a very good comic writer at all and I frankly find most of, if not all of his work terrible.

 

When Professor James Arnold (Mark Hamill) is kidnapped by assailants led by internet billionaire, Richmond Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) and his henchwoman, Gazelle (Sofia Boutella). Kingsman spy, Lancelot (Jack Davenport) is sent in to rescue Arnold, but is killed in action. Seeking a replacement, Kingsman, turn to several young adults as a suitable choice - including Gary "Eggsy" Unwin. "Eggsy's" father was in training to be a Kingsman, when he was killed in action seventeen years prior. With the help of mentor Harry Hart (Colin Hart), "Eggsy" looks to make the most of the opportunity with his trouble life. Meanwhile, Valentine is giving away free SIM cards for cell phones, however a signal is broadcasted to the SIM cards, causing anyone who has them to be uncontrollably violent - A method Valentine is using to exterminate the virus that is the human race.

 

Was I expecting an overly serious espionage film like say Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy or even something remotely like the Bond films? No, and I knew that the minute I found out it was based on a Mark Miller work. I went in with low expectations, and over the course of an extremely tonally uneven film, they continued to sink lower and lower. It tries and succeeds to have a far fetched plot and a somewhat throwback to classic spy films, mainly the Bond films with it's lavish sets and far fetched villainous scheme. And there's times when it just goes completely bat-S*** and disjointed with it's hyper stylized violence.

 

It's as if Kingsman: The Secret Service is too keen on trying to be appealing to the young crowd with it's over-the-top-ness, similar to Kick-Ass. I get it, there's people out there who like this sort of thing (mainly the action per se), but it's incredibly dull. It's clear Matthew Vaughn (director, co-writer, producer) is more keen on filming action scenes, as he really does go all out on them. He fails at adding or properly capturing emotions on screen when there are moments they do occur. And the actions scenes are all so jarring to watch, it's literally Vaughn screaming at you, "LOOK AT HOW COOL THIS IS!".

 

The acting is very iffy, while Taron Egerton and Michael Caine are terrific (although the "JB" conversation wasn't). I wasn't impressed with Colin Firth at all, and frankly Samuel L. Jackson with his hat tilt to the side and his Adidas Classics clothing was a joke of a villain. That includes his lisp and motives. The humor falls flat and the film as a whole is quite a bore. Of course, Kingsman: The Secret Service is supposed to be like this, right? But was it meant to be the piece of S*** I found it to be?

 

It's pretty sad that X-Men: First Class is a much better spy film than this film is, by leaps and bounds. As for Matthew Vaughn, I've enjoyed only two of his films (Layer Cake and X-Men: First Class.), everything else from him is just trash.

 

Run All Night - 2015 - 3/5 - Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra - starring Liam Neeson and Ed Harris

Wait a minute! The new Liam Neeson action film was good??? Yes, surprisingly, and I was actually pretty entertained throughout. It was certainly better than Taken 3 and probably his most enjoyable straight up action film in quite some time. Neeson joins director Jaume Collet-Serra for their third collaboration in which I can say that Run All Night is easily the best and my favorite of their three films together.

 

Once notorious hitman, Jimmy "The Gravedigger" Conlon is now a anything but shell of his former self. No friends, no family, he has nothing but his friend, Shawn Maguire (Ed Harris). One night, Jimmy's estranged son, Michael (Joel Kinnaman) is driving his Albanian clients to see someone. He witnesses one of them killed by Danny (Boyd Holbrook), Shawn's son and Jimmy kills Danny to protect his son's life. Distraught, Shawn sends out all of his men and connections, including professional killer, Mr. Price (Common) to hunt Jimmy and Michael. Together, Jimmy and Michael must bury the past long enough to survive for one night, all while Jimmy tries to clear things up for his son with a detective, Harding (Vincent D'Onofrio) who's long been on his tail.

 

The advertisements of course will do everything they can to make Run All Night appear is action packed as possible. It's honestly much more of a thriller (or at least an action thriller) in ways. Some critics have said that the film has a convoluted plot, which is baffling. It's as straight forward as they come, it just happens to be much better executed then some of the more mainstream action films. The action sequences were well done, and there was enough breathing room in between that allowed for more plot.

 

Liam Neeson is as game as ever. Whether you've enjoyed his films as of late, he does bring it, and he certainly does so in Run All Night. The rest of the acting is all great, and some of the finer scenes are the little moments between Neeson and Kinnaman. There's certainly enough action here to go around and it's entertaining and tense - including a finale that I thought was well done and well shot. The car chase was also well done too.

While I enjoyed it, there's a few flaws. While it's a pretty good film, the script is still a by numbers action/thriller story. Jaume Collet-Serra just handles it a bit differently. And the music score by Tom Holkenborg sounded too much like a Hans Zimmer knock off. Which is funny, considering Holkenborg is one of several collaborators Zimmer has worked with in the past.

 

All in all, I was equally surprised at how entertained I was with Run All Night. It's by far one of Liam Neeson's best action films in recent time and is certainly one that is worth that watch. I can see myself returning to this one in the future.

 

Fifty Shades Of Grey - 2015 - 0/5 - Directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson - starring Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan

Now this was a waste of time - though thankfully I didn't spend money to see this in the theater. Not that I was planning on doing so myself. Saw this online to download, figured why the hell not, I can probably heckle at this for a couple of hours. It turns out that Fifty Shades Of Grey is probably the most dreadfully boring film I have seen in quite some time. It also doesn't help that it's complete S*** either. Then again, It's not like anyone was expecting this to be absolutely amazing, or simply good.

 

Anastasia "Ana" Steele (Dakota Johnson) is a 21-year-old undergraduate in Washington. When her friend Kate Kavanaugh (Eloise Mumford) becomes ill, Ana steps in her place to interview wealthy entrepreneur, Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan). Over the course of the interview, it's visible that Ana is somewhat attracted to him, though mildly intimidating, but it's Christian who has an eye for her. The two eventually begin to see each other, though under different pretenses. Ana isn't getting the relationship she expected, instead she's in a Dom/Sub relationship. That's pretty much the film in a nut shell.

 

It's pretty sickening when crap-tier literature from a crap-tier author manages to get published and snag a sweet movie deal with options for the sequel books. All for a cool, hundred million or so. This is the worst type of filmmaking there could be. Of course I'm the wrong intended audience and viewer, but anyone with a (half) brain could figure out that Fifty Shades Of Grey is just horrendous in every way. The script is what ties everything together here. Packed with some cringe worthy dialogue, eye-rolling lines, throwaway characters, and plot that pretty much runs around in circles. "Does Anastasia Steele want to be his submissive slave or not?". That seems to be the question she asks herself, but can never make up mind. She's not sure if she's happy in this type of relationship and such. But buy her a car and throw other gifts at her, and she'll be happy for days.

 

That leads me to those steamy sex scenes you were waiting to feast your eyes on. The sex scenes are pretty much on the same level as that of Tommy Wiseau's masterpiece (sarcasm), The Room. By that, they all share a common interest - which is they all require slow pop/R&B songs to accompany them. Mainly in order to appeal more and be more romantic. Instead it looks completely amateurish and frankly hilarious. Then again, it's not Danny Elfman's dreadful of which was reduced to background noise would have sufficed.

 

Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan deliver performances akin to Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart from The Twilight Saga. Only difference is those two have gone on to be successful and have good performances. Johnson and Dornan are extremely flat and have absolutely zero chemistry. It's hard to buy them as being serious or romantically linked. Especially since they have literally one facial expression. Dornan stand there with this smug, blank emotionless face (maybe intended for his character, but F*** knows) and there is Johnson who has a look as if she's been struck stupid or something. Their line delivery is awful.

 

In the long run, Universal is looking at a cash cow, especially with two more films to come. Yes, you read that correctly, two sequels are in production for 2016 and 2017. What more can they possibly try to cover or even add to an alarmingly dull story. All I can say is that Charlie Hunam, you sir have dodged a bullet. A wise move for your career, I'd say.

 

Focus - 2015 - 2.5/5 - directed by Glenn Ficarra and John Requa - starring Will Smith and Margot Robbie

Focus essentially relies on it's star power from it's two leads while trying to con the audience with bigger things to come, though it never truly reaches those levels. Instead we have a film that is trying to be smarter than it should, but it's acting and moments throughout are a somewhat, saving grace.

 

Nicky (Will Smith) is a season con-man who finds himself keen on the beautiful Jess (Margot Robbie) one night, that ends with him seeing through her failed attempt at conning him. A few days later, the meet again, and Nicky agrees to mentor her and give her the knowledge she needs to be a con artist like Nicky. After pulling a string of successful small jobs in New Orleans, including conning a compulsive gambler (B.D. Wong), Nick leaves her for Buenos Aires, as he finds himself drawn too much to her in the relationship.

 

In Buenos Aires, Nicky is working for billionaire race team owner, Rafael Garriga (Rodrigo Santoro) and agrees to accept a job where he will pose as a disgruntled employee, only to take a job with the competition and sell them a fake component that will slow the competition's cars down, thus giving Garriga the win. However, on the night Nicky is scheduled to begin the con, he sees Jess with Garriga. Stunned and trying not to lose focus, Nicky must keep himself in check on the job, while trying to secretly pursue her.

 

It was nice to see Will Smith in a smaller budgeted film again, and not acting alongside his son or making a second sequel in plunging franchise (Sorry, I'm not a Men In Black fan). Focus reminded me of how good Will Smith can actually be. Sure at moments in the film he's playing himself, but his performance in this is probably his best in quite some time. It's Margot Robbie who steals the show however. Yes, she has the looks and the beauty (thanks to The Wolf Of Wall Street), but she also manages to outshine Smith at times. While her character is a little weaker (thanks to the middling script), she really does triumph as Jess. The chemistry between Smith and Robbie is actually very good, which is a rarity to see now in films like this.

 

While the direction can be pretty slick at times and stylish, the script is the biggest problem. The romance angle can easily be seen a mile away in the very beginning and almost comes across as forced rather than natural. With con film, everything is usually culminated in the end by the big reveal. The twist. When you really find out who was played by who and consequences of such a thing. If done right, it can be good. It's obvious that this was a route writer/directors Glenn Ficarra & John Requa were going with. Except, it all became a little too predictable by the second and third act. And the final con/twist was severely underwhelming. It also doesn't help that Focus has an ever-changing tone throughout going from Romantic/Thriller to even Romantic comedy at several occasions.

 

Don't let my final score try and deter you away from seeing this. If the script was tighter, I would definitely be giving this a three star rating. However, for two and half stars, it was still a pretty enjoyable film, it's just the script that was the let down.

 

The Loft - 2015 - 2/5 - Directed by Erik Van Looy - starring Five guys and One dead girl

Shot in 2011 and finally getting it's theatrical release, The Loft is an American remake of a Belgian film of the same name. The American remake was critically panned, but in all fairness, it's not nearly as awful as everyone is making out to be. It's not outstanding, but it at least tried to be different. It just wasn't executed properly.

 

Five married men - Vincent, Luke, Chris, Phillip, and Marty (Karl Urban, Wentworth Miller, James Marsden, Matthias Schoenaerts, and Eric Stonestreet, respectively) own together an uptown loft of which they use to meet their mistresses. One morning, Luke walks in only to find a dead woman (Isabel Lucas) laying the bed. The other four guys arrive and they each try to figure out the pieces of the puzzle. Did one of the other guys do this? Or did someone manage to get a key and is now framing us for it?

 

None of these guys are likable. This is pretty much explained to us in the very beginning of the film when it is explained what the loft will be intended for. After that, the rest of the film is just flashbacks of the film showing us just how much these guys treat and view women, and it pretty much runs around in circles, with little advancements. I'll give them credit, as the twist was something I wasn't expecting, and wasn't nearly as bad, but the ending really irritated me as it borders in the finale half hour or so from being too convoluted.

 

There's really not much else I can say about The Loft. I haven't seen the original film, but I'm certainly much more curious now.

[thecasinoroyale]

'The Water Diviner' (2014)

 

A solid directorial debut for Russell Crowe who uses Australia and Turkey to full effect to make film that is very beautiful to look at and very emotive places. It’s a slow and steady progression, and evidently a personal thing of love for Crowe exploring a slice of Australian history by taking us back to the 1900s and the Battle of Gallipoli. While this isn’t a war film, there is enough moments here (granted they look like sequences made for a TV-movie), to remind us of the usual horrors of war – slow motion, loud noises, blood and big explosions.

 

It’s a safe film, with no big risks taken or anything out of the ordinary coming to bear. It’s a basic story of a man risking his own life to find his three sons presumed dead in battle but have nothing to show for it. As usual with this style of film, our grieving, down-to-earth family man Joshua Connor will throw himself headlong into danger all for finding out the truth. For a civilian, he does manage to traverse into the heart of a military zone quite quickly it has to be said with a few kind words and papers here and there.

 

Still, it’s not a film out to be a historical document. Crowe is great as ever on screen as a determined father and husband with nothing to lose and everything to gain, and directs himself and the others with a great understanding of story and development. As said before, Australia and Turkey are used to great effect here with stunning backdrops and sun-baked sands, canyons, cities and countryside all present.

 

Olga Kurylenko, in probably the best role of her career, is marvellous as Ayshe, an Ottoman mother trying to bring up her child in a world ravaged by war and political upheaval. She is a stunning woman, a very good actress and very convincing in her plight to protect her son, and herself, from the tyranny out there. The screen time she shares with Crowe is very well handled – tender and tense at the same time where you actually care for both of them. Jai Courtney, sporting a super moustache, is also pretty good as Australian Lieutenant Colonel Hughes and wasn’t as bad as he has been in various other movies. He is down-to-earth, playing against credible international actors with a grounded story, and he works because of this and is a good character in general.

 

A brave debut on the whole for Crowe for a subject he clearly understands and respects, and it makes for a nice look back at the Ottoman Empire and how cultures and governments were perceived, and who really was pulling the strings. It never really reaches fever pitch and the temp is always simmering, with no real pay-off except mild few minutes of action towards the end which is well shot and directed. But this is a drama, not an action film, and it certainly has the heart when it comes down to what families would do to protect their own, no matter their religion, race or what price they have to pay.

[DaveBond21]

Casino Royale (2006)

 

The first 50 minutes of this movie are excellent, as good as anything that we have seen before. The casino scenes are good but it does drag on a long time and unusually for a Bond movie, the biggest stunts are already behind us. There are a lot of interruptions to the card game and this does tend to get too much at one point.

 

It is a long movie, but I do love the scenes in Venice (minus the fight) and the last scene.

 

A great Bond movie, one of the best.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - 1998 - 5/5 - Directed by Guy Ritchie - starring Four guys who owe £500,000

 

Guy Ritchie's directorial debut, Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels is one wild ride of a film. Packed with shady, underworld figures, four guys desperate for half a million, antique shotguns, a S*** ton of weed, and interconnected plots, it's hilarious from start to finish. It's been a while since I had seen this, so I figured why not give it a go. It's always held up on rewatch, and it certainly did this time.

 

Four small time criminals and good friends Eddy, Tom, Bacon, and Soap (Nick Moran, Jason Flemyng, Jason Statham, Dexter Fletcher, respectively) put together £100,000 so Eddy can enter a high stakes poker game by local gangster and porn king, "Hatchet" Harry Lonsdale (P.H. Moriarty). The game is rigged, and in favor of Harry, as Eddy is too good of a player to beat. Eddy loses and his friends alongside him are to pay a £500,000 debt in little under a week, and Harry also has his eyes set on the bar Eddy's father, J.D. (Sting) owns.

 

With time running out, Eddy overhears his neighbors, a gang of robbers planning to steal from a marijuana grower his drugs and money. The four friends plan to rob them of the drugs and money and use it to free themselves of the debt. Meanwhile, Harry's right hand man, Barry "The Baptist" (Lenny McLean) hires two thieves to steal antique shotguns, who in turn sell them to Nick "The Greek" (Stephen Marcus) who has then sold them to Tom to use for their robbery on the robbers. Everything is all tied into shotguns, drugs, and money.

 

Guy Ritchie, particularly this film and his follow up, Snatch are sometimes compared to Quentin Tarantino as they share some similarities. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction have a distinct visual and narrative style to them, as does Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. However, I consider both men to be in leagues of their own. What can be seen as a simple plot, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels eventually expands over it's 106 minute run time onto other characters and their sub-plots, but never suffers from being convoluted.

 

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is genuinely hilarious. There's not a single moment in this film where I wasn't laughing at all the right moments, or engaged in the entire affair. Ritchie is terrific at writing characters and dialogue. He can also turn things into absolutely madness, as evident by the film's final half hour which is hilariously crazy. With combined talents of writing and directing, Guy Ritchie does a wonderful job of creating a film that is both full of style and substance.

 

The cast is exceptionally well as everyone involved is terrific. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is the first film to introduce us to Jason Statham and Vinnie Jones, and they do shine here. It's sort of funny as Statham does more talking and is more humorous here and Jones is more of a bada**, yet it's Statham who would go on to become a modern action hero.

 

I like to call this the first part in Guy Ritchie's "Britain Trilogy", in which Snatch and RocknRolla would also join in. Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels is a comedy film that excels in all aspects and seventeen years it is still a riot.

 

Snatch - 2000 - 5/5 - Directed by Guy Ritchie - starring Brad Pitt and Jason Statham

Snatch is Guy Ritchie's second film and probably one his most well known (outside of the two Sherlock Holmes films). It's a continuation of the themes and characters along with humor and violence were introduced to in his previous film, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. It still has Ritchie's visual style and a story that is all pieced together in the end with each plot joining together.

 

In Antwerp, Franky "Four-Fingers" (Benicio del Toro) and a group of men steal an 84-carat diamond, leading Franky to travel to London to deliver to Doug "The Head" (Mike Reid) on behalf of Avi (Dennis Farina). One of the robbers with Franky tells him to visit an ex-KGB agent and now arms dealer, Boris "The Blade (or "The Bullet Dodger" or "The Sneaky Russian")" to buy a guy, but unbeknownst, the man is brothers with Boris and he conspires a plan to steal the diamond.

 

Meanwhile, underground boxing promoter, Turkish (Jason Statham) who works for criminal boss, Brick Top (Alan Ford) sends his boxer who has just recently been added to one of Brick Top's matches to pick up a caravan from a pack of pikeys, led by Mickey (Brad Pitt). Unfortunately, his boxer is badly injured and nearly killed by Mickey, who must now act as Turkish's fighter. On the other side, Avi comes to London, with the help of "Bullet Tooth" Tony (Vinnie Jones) to locate Franky and the diamond. In the end, everything is the cause or reaction of the hunt for the diamond.

 

Snatch is just as entertaining and hilarious as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. While this film has a much more recognizable cast, it's still very much grounded under Ritchie and his roots. It's packed with characters of all different sorts, and each has their own agenda though it's the diamond "the size of the fist" that is what eventually ties everything together. Snatch can be seen as much more faster paced and having more sub-plots than Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, but it is in no means hard to follow.

 

Everyone brings their A game here and no matter the role or size of it, they all make a lasting impression. Brad Pitt and his pikey accent is crazy, despite not being able to understand what he can say. Jason Statham still rocks even when he isn't kicking a**. The introduction scene for Vinnie Jones' "Bullet Tooth" Tony still cracks me up. Rade Sherbedgia is a crazy Russian who just doesn't seem to die and is downright scary. Dennis Farina is by far my favorite of the bunch, and I'm still sad that's passed away. Literally everyone is outstanding the chemistry between these people is impeccable.

 

You can view Snatch as being more of the same, but it's quite entertaining, and like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, it still holds up fifteen years later. I still find myself engaged throughout and laugh every time I watch this and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels whether it's together and separate.

 

Some say this is Ritchie's absolute best, and probably his masterpiece. I think it's tied (clearly) with Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

 

RocknRolla - 2008 - 4/5 - Directed by Guy Ritchie - starring Gerard Butler and Idris Elba

RocknRolla is what I like to call the final film in a trilogy of films that includes Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. It is more or less the same type of films with intertwined plots and characters of all different sites, all tied together by one little thing. RocknRolla is just as engaging and hilarious as the previous two films, however it is a little darker in tone and frankly not has stylish or engrossing as the other two films.

 

When two men, One-Two and Mumbles (Gerard Butler and Idris Elba, respectively) are denied the planning to a piece of Real Estate due to their prior criminal past, they have a month to get back the money they owe to mob boss & real estate mogul, Lenny Cole (Tom Wilkinson). Lenny on the other hand wants in on a crooked land deal from Russian billionaire, Uri Omovich (Karl Roden) and charges him €7,000,000 and as a token of a business relationship, Uri lends him his lucky painting. However the painting is stolen.

 

Stealing the painting is Lenny's stepson, Johnny Quid (Toby Kebbell), a rock star who is believed to have died due to his known drug abuse. Lenny and his right hand man, Archy (Mark Strong) enlist Johnny's managers, Mickey & Roman (Jeremy Piven and Chris "Ludacris" Bridges, respectively) to track him down. Meanwhile, an accountant named Stella (Thandie Newton) as hired One-Two and Mumbles and their group "The Wild Bunch" to steal the money from Uri. Everything is all strangely connected to that luck painting owned by Uri.

 

While Ritchie did a fantastic job of making sure Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch didn't suffer from being messy and convoluted, here, he almost gets the job done. At times the film goes up and goes down. It appears it doesn't have that same kinetic energy and ferocious attitude of the previous two films, despite following the same narrative formula and structure.

 

Does it make RocknRolla a bad film? Not at all, it certainly is funny and there's lots of gags throughout, but again, it just feels like something is missing. It certainly isn't the acting as Ritchie once again assembles a large cast of well known actors. All get the job done and all are perfectly. Whether it's Toby Kebbell's outstanding performance as Johnny Quid, Tom Hardy's hilarious take on Handsome Bob, or simply the outrageous gangster performance from Tom Wilkinson. Everyone is outstanding.

 

I certainly don't hate RocknRolla at all, I just feel that while more or less same as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch it tries to follow the same route again, but doesn't triumph like the other two films. But once again, it doesn't make it a bad film. It's still got several great moments and still funny and has a redeeming factor to it.

[thecasinoroyale]

'Inglorious Basterds' (2009)

 

I’ve never really been a fan of Quentin Tarantino as a director. Yes, I know he doesn’t hold back with the bold violence, ensemble casts, quirky story-telling and surreal pop culture references and that works for many people, but doesn’t for me. I’ve got one more of his films to watch from word-of-mouth and that is ‘Django Unchained’, and already from that I am looking forward to just one thing in that, evident here in ‘Inglorious Basterds’, and that is Christoph Waltz.

 

While Brad Pitt in ‘Fury’ got me into watching this war film, here Pitt gives another enjoyable portrayal of an American WW soldier, albeit slightly more unhinged and sadistic, but sporting a wonderful moustache and a brilliant accent. The rest of the cast are also great in their roles; from the tormented Melanie Laurent, to the fearless Michael Fassbender and even a surreal turn by Mike “Austin Powers” Myers as a tough-talking British General, this film and its usual Tarantino disjointed narrative is saved by Waltz’s SS Colonel.

 

From the electrifyingly simple opening sequence (something Tarantino does so well admittedly, long takes of 1:1 conversation with characters to really build tension and see under their skin), to his eerie presence around Nazi occupied France where you really see him like a hawk; breathing down the necks of those undercover agents and waiting to strike. Waltz plays Landa perfectly and I can only see him doing it so well – he isn’t over the top, nor overly dramatic; he is contained, cunning and quite unpredictable as you never know if and when he is going to snap against the enemy. When he does, it’s shocking but so perfect; it makes Landa a very likeable and respected “villain”. It only excited me more to know this level of acting talent, simmering drama and powerful screen presence will be shown to the world again as the villain in future Bond movie ‘Spectre’, which will be just perfect.

 

While this is a very authentic war film thanks to lots of dialogue spoken in native French, German or Italian between characters in the back-drop of Nazi occupied France, the pacing does lag for a me a little in places, jumping between sets of characters and plots that, eventually, do come together in the end, but I found it just disjointed and was enjoying one sequence before it stopped and everything including the pace and genre near changes for another. It’s a love-letter to the Western, but set in WW2, with odd spaghetti western music and even David Bowie songs playing over stand-out moments. Nothing surprising when you think of Tarantino and his style of directing, but for me it just wears a little thin now and detracts from what the film could have been.

 

It’s hard to love or hate this; because when it works, it works very well but when it stumbles, it’s evident and takes a while to pick back up. While this is pretty much WW2 in an alternate universe, we are given a full-on explosive finale where everything just comes down to how many Nazis can be killed in the shortest space of time, and how much chaos can erupt thanks to a discard cigarette. It’s crazy, but undeniably entertaining as all paths come together and we see tragic, heroic, dramatic and amusing ends to our characters on a path that will let some survive, some not. It's a violent film with plenty of blood and gore and brutal battering's with baseball bats; but did you expect anything less?

 

This may stand strong on repeat viewings once you know what to expect, and it’s annoying because this makes it hard to love or hate. Christoph Waltz amplifies it for me, and also the final chapter where everything comes together. In all it’s of the more enjoyable films from Tarantino for me, but still suffers from his direction that people seem to love just because it’s him. Over-rated? Definitely.

[x007AceOfSpades]

I'll definitely agree with you on Inglorious Basterds being overrated.

[seawolfnyy]

Spaceballs. Now I'm waiting for Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money.

[Call Billy Bob]

Spaceballs. Now I'm waiting for Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money.

I'm still holding out hope for History of the Word, Part 2 - Hitler on Ice? A Viking Funeral? Jews in Space? C'mon Mel! Give it to us!

[seawolfnyy]

What about Bride of Young Frankenstein? At least we can take solace in the fact that we are probably getting Super Troopers 2.....finally.