Reviews written by registered user
|194 reviews in total|
I come to the movies to be entertained. I was very much entertained. I
came this movie partially to see a character study featuring a virgin
on the verge of college graduation coming of age at the hands of a
self-advertised millionaire sadist who considers himself soulless. That
is precisely what i got. THe other attraction of this movie, of course,
was the opportunity to watch B & D sex set against a trashy love/lust
story. This obviously is not for all tastes but just as obviously,
given the box office, attracts many and half of the people I know who
went once have now gone twice.
I see a lot of IMDb critics giving this movie one star on the basis of calling it soft porn. I won't deny that this film is right on the edge of soft porn and that if you don't like voyeuristic sex and soft porn, you should not go into the theater. Is there anyone who bought a ticket who did not know to expect "the sexual abuse of a young woman being used as supposed entertainment." I read this quote verbatim in at least three reviews. Like anything else, if you know you find such things so abhorrent, that's all you'll think about, then you SHOULD NOT GO to see this film.
Me, I like well-made soft-porn laced with occasional humor. As someone with what I consider a healthy and open-to-anything libido, I also enjoy watching naked bodies engage in kinky sex, especially when set up properly. For this kind of movie, the direction was incredibly crisp and cogent. Christian Grey was exactly the menacing, narcissistic yet charming control freak he was supposed to be. I found it impossible not to be overwhelmed and seduced by his power. I certainly found it easy to believe that Dakota Johnson would be. Marcia Gay Harden's brief turn as Grey's adopted mother is wonderful.
Even the many one-star haters seem to indicate that the direction and pacing (fantastic in my opinion) were not bad. I would say the best I've ever seen in a borderline soft-porn movie and among the best I've every seen for a trashy love story (Think Butterfly, The Other Side of Midnight, and Once is Not Enough). I'd also ask how a movie with decent direction could get ONE star (3 o4 4 would be more reasonable). I reserve ONE STAR for total disasters with totally incompetent direction like Homer and Eddie. This was slick, well-directed, and in my opinion (perhaps the biggest actually pertinent major disagreement with the critics) uniformly well-acted especially by the supporting cast and Johnson. I also did find the chemistry electric with Jamie properly stiff when he found himself confused by letting Anastasia into a heart he had blockaded and a soul he was convinced he didn't have.
As for the bodies shown, the nudity, the devices, and the choreography of the sex, I've never seen better. One problem I generally have with the borderline soft porn genre is spending two much time on mechanics. Most movies based on trashy novels also spend too much time dwelling on emotionally ravaged faces not quite executed bu mediocre actors. This movie never stopped coming at you with excitement, intrigue, and sex long enough to stagnate like that.
So, I had a great time and enjoyed it thoroughly and most of the 100+ women and 8 other men in the audience seemed to enjoy it on that basis as well. After all, they got what they knew they were coming to see.
I enjoyed it quite a bit. Cumberbatch was PERFECT as Assange, nailed
him - and so piercing. Excellent supporting performances by Laura
Linney, Stanley Tucci, Alexander Seddig (Dr. Bashir from DS9), Anthony
Mackie, and Michael Culkin. Yes, I said Laura Linney - who I consider
the most overrated actress ever and whose performances I always
despise. Here she was beyond perfect in her timing, dialog,
expressions, and nuances as a State Department Official who has some
conscience, thinks she is a pragmatist but needs periodic reality
checks from Stanley Tucci, and certainly won't sacrifice her own neck
for principle when it comes down to it. Tucci underplays his part to
great effect. Culkin and Seddig are both very interesting in their two
scenes. The direction was fast and well-paced with amazing sets and a
most appropriate score.
I haven't mentioned Cumberbatch's co-star, Daniel Bruhl, who gets just as much if not more screen time, as co-Wiki-leaks Founder Daniel Berg. Nor did I mention the female lead, Alicia Vikander, who played Amke, Berg's girlfriend. Berg provided the source material use for the film and he is the voice of conscience with which we are supposed to sympathize - especially when Assange fires (expels actually,since no one at WIki Leaks got paid) both of them for insubordination and brands them as delusional traitors. I say we're supposed to sympathize with them but I came away feeling them more self-pitying and whiny than heroic and I'm not sure whether it was the writing, the acting, or a combination of the two. I'm not saying that I could pinpoint anything wrong with the performances; and I'd have to see other work to see whether my reaction to the two came from he script. Those two characterizations/performances make this a 3.5-/4 instead of 4/4 (8/10 if you prefer). I thought it was very good - especially if you have an interest in the media's role in politics and intelligence agencies.
This well-directed if thinly scripted thriller has more-than-adequate
supporting performances by a good cast, but almost all are given little
to do beyond providing the backdrop for Amanda Seyfried's Jill. And
Jill has us in her corner from start-to-finish as she tries to overcome
her branded-as-delusional history to race against time to save her
sister's life. The police and her psychiatrist do everything possible
to undermine her efforts.
Now don't over-analyze the plot or view this in context of what would happen in the real world. It won't hold up if you do but such scrutiny would be missing the fun. This is not a docudrama.
There are plenty of thrillers with driven protagonists bit Seyfried's remarkable and multi-layered performance puts this one two notched above most. Score is perfect for the movie, understated but drive. I give this an 8/10. Be seated with your popcorn and go to the bathroom before you sit down and watch, turning your cell phone off. You won't want to be interrupted during this one.
She also starred in Belle and totally captivated me with her intensity
and ability to convey multi-layered and complex feelings of varied
intensities. After seeing Beyond the Lights, I am even more impressed
with her abilities and ever-refining raw talent. The entire cast was
very good - especially co-lead Nate Parker who managed to overcome some
of his sermonizing dialog to make his officer with political ambitions
by-way-of-his-father become a bit more real than the cliché the writing
of his character set him up for. The actors playing Trey and Liam
worked well off each other in the group-think mindset of the music
Minnie Driver has been one of my favorite under-utilized actresses for a long time. Her Hell-bent on Success Manager/Mother had unusual layers of complexity and dimension for what would normally be a well-worn stereotype. Danny Glover brought some of his magic and personality to elevate his character beyond being an equal and opposite meddling and domineering force, despite the limitations given to him by the scriptwriter.
I thought the auteur fares better as director with excellently telling visuals and as author of the story's "book" than as a dialog writer - especially for her male characters. The good news is that she allowed her actors enough freedom to work past the clichés.
Overall 8/10 - well worth seeing.
Herb Blank Head, Business Development and Managing Director, ESG
Solutions Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones are nothing short of
remarkable in the Theory of Everything. The supporting cast,
cinematographic innovations, and costuming were all excellent. I
learned a lot and recommend it fairly highly.
However, the tedious piano score, relentless throughout, really started alternatively putting me to sleep and getting on my nerves. I know many of today's young filmmakers and critics have a disdain for overly dramatic scores. I don't personally but either way - this was truly the other extreme!
The only other nit I'll pick I recognize as representative of the fact that I am from a prior generation. I found the dialog overly spartan and a lot of story blanks deliberately unexplained. To me and I daresay others from my generation, this creates distance and makes personal emotional involvement difficult. That said, I am aware enough of both the subject matter and today's artistic and industry standards to believe that was exactly what James Marsh had in mind.
I've often heard today's highly regarded filmmakers and "experts" express disdain for verbal storytelling insisting that really talented directors should emphasize imagery and the visuality of the medium over story exposition. For those people in the reviews I've read, the DIrector didn't go far enough in that direction so I should be grateful - and I am. There also is a marvelous scene where Jane tells her mother (who inadvertently starts the new Chapter in Jane's life with the choirmaster) that "She's never heard anything so English in her life." So indeed, the lack of outward emotion expressed on film and the economic and sterile dialog is quite illustrative of a very English family background and Cambridge-educated gentry. It also is consistent with the recurrent subtext of the film contrasting Jane's C-of-E morality and natural proclivity toward adherence to standards of decorum with Hawking's personal immaturity (dictated by circumstances), unconventionality and unrepentant atheism. So the understatement is quite appropriate especially from Jane's lens which is how we get to view most of what unfolds. In short, I have to recognize that James Marsh did a superb job of conveying in cinema the subtext of the film.
So, I conclude that most of IMDb will appreciate what I found detracted just a bit from my personal enjoyment. But that's quite trivial overall. I enjoyed the movie and think most will as well.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I watch movies for their entertainment value in the sense of keeping me
engaged in its world and its story. I do not care if it reinforces my
political, religious, or cultural beliefs. I recognize that is not true
of everybody, and that's okay also. I just wanted to provide context.
At its core, Not Easily Broken is the story of a marriage that undergoes various tests and stresses from many directions. There is tragedy, heartbreak, and hidden agendas along the way. In other words, this is what we used to call a classic "sudser" or adult soap opera.
For a limited budget movie, I thought the acting was superb - most especially Taraji Hanson (Joss Carter on Person of Interest and hilarious in the otherwise tiresome Think Like a Man). Others here refer to her as a one-dimensional harridan but I think nothing could be further than the truth. My wife and I cared about their marriage because she was conveyed well but subtly that she was balancing different instincts and being pulled in different directions and was searching for but not finding a moral compass. And yes, this really is where belief in God can make a positive difference in real people's lives (whether he "really exists" or not) and frequently does. This was also well conveyed extremely well by this talented actor. Jenifer Lewis was magnificent as her interfering mother who also was not without her redemptive qualities but could not overcome the damage she had sustained.
In many ways, their roles were much tougher than that of the sympathetic Maeve Quinlan or co-Executive Producer and star Morris Chestnut. I've always thought it easier for an actor to convey empathy and understanding for a sympathetic character than a nasty one. Not that both were not terrific in their performances. I was unfamiliar with Ms. Quinlan but she truly impressed. I've adored Albert Hall since his performance in Apocalypse Now. He does a convincing job here as the minister but I would have loved to have seen more from him.
Morris Chestnut who portrays lead character Dave, the narrator of the film, obviously, is a terrific and increasingly accomplished actor. He was also co-producer of the film. I do not know to what extent he was involved in the messaging aspect of this movie or to what extent the Jakes' novel (I've not read any of them but have seen two other movies based on his works) focused on the relationship between women and men "being turned upside down" in today's world.
In many ways, this plays a bigger role in the film's apparent raison d'etre than its message of getting back in touch with God - which is universal in these movies. As an ardent feminist, I am personally very uncomfortable with this point of view. But as said, I enjoy the movie on its entertainment value on its own terms. In its principal illustration, Not Easily Broken attempts to show that an imbalance can be created when an independent woman uses money or some other artificial barometer as a means for controlling the marriage and the household and demeaning her husband whom she has convinced herself she does not really need. As it turns out, she has been indoctrinated by her mother's negative experiences and anger. The minister helps bring her closer to God and realize the importance of not letting their marriage be torn asunder. Dave (Morris Chestnut) persuades her that their marriage must be more of a partnership. Voila, a woman who had put her career in front of the inconvenience and loss of independence she perceived in having a child is now thrilled that she is pregnant.
Okay, I've known couples like that - unfortunately, that solution in all 3 of those cases ultimately led to divorce. But, that's just 3 cases and makes Dave's viewpoint no less valid or at least somewhat defensible by a reasonable person.
There was a scene that did bother me a lot - and maybe I'm just being defensive because I am just like Kevin Hart's character in that he happily allows his wife to make all decision because he says, "Happy wife equals happy life." I agree, but in the context of the movie, he is comic relief and ultimately the object of scorn. I thought it was especially odious when his wife threw him out because not only did he have no backbone and no independent opinions, but because he has small feet (wink, wink). Talk about judgmental about what constitutes manhood!
Then again, not only was I actively engaged in the movie, but it also provoked enough thought from me afterward to compel me to write this lengthy review. It also made me cry when Maeve Quinlan's son dies - which according to the movie's scorn for Kevin Hart's character must also be "unmanly." But like I say, the filmmakers are entitled to their opinion - they just need to entertain me. They did and even made me think.
I did not read the book of know anything about Gillian Flynn beyond the
fact that she adapted her book for the movies screenplay. Therefore, I
did not realize that this would be more for my money than an excellent
suspense thriller or a did-he or didn't he movie. This turned out to be
such a clever and meticulous spider web of plotting and
counter-plotting, that it was difficult to keep up with all of its
twists and turns. What made it especially difficult to keep up with
once we were an hour into the film was that I kept laughing from the
pitch-dark American-values comedy that flowed naturally from the
situations and character's motivations.
If you enjoy intricate plots that are perfectly executed and a thinking person's thriller, you will not be disappointed. If you also enjoy movies that comment on the absurdities of society and marriage and the needs to please the masses, you will be even more happily surprised. And if you like movies with great co-star performances and great supporting performances all around, you will love this movie.
On the other hand, if you want a reality escape where the good guys are all good and the bad guys are all bad, skip Gone Girl and go see The Equalizer or A Walk Among the Tombstones. This movie requires all of your gray matter to appreciate it.
I actually watched this in the middle of the night on one of those
evenings where you fall asleep too early, then wake up and can't get
back to sleep. As a veteran film buff and a huge fan of Director
Delbert Mann and writer Paddy Chayefsky, I am surprised that I never
heard of this very New York 1950's slice-of-real-life family drama with
a May-December romance between Kim Novak (Betty) and Frederic March
(Jerry Kingsley) as its Centerpiece.
As with Marty, the movie centers around the way that fiends of family members with concerns and pre-set notions of "what should be" of their own and reject the budding and heartfelt romance between two very lonely and insecure people who have just recently experienced trauma (divorce of husband and death of wife). The supporting turns by those trying to scuttle the relationship including Joan Copeland, Lee Grant, and Glenda Farrell among many others are terrific. On the supportive side, my favorite performance in the film was by Albert Dekker has March's long-time business partner. He advises March to reach out and hold on to the special relationship he has with both arms. He also has the film's best line saying, "When I die, they should write on my tombstone, What a Waste of Time!" Martin Balsam is also supportive as daughter Copeland's husband who supports Jerry's relationship and gets it with both barrels from his wife. The most surprising performance to me was from Lee Philips who I thought was awful in the two TV show guest appearances I saw him do before deciding that directing TV shows was a more suitable endeavor for him. Here, I found him perfect for his role and incredibly convincing as Betty's ex-husband who wants her back and at a minimum wants another sexual conquest of her. He's a smooth cad without being unctuous or obvious in any way and provides a stunning counterpoint to every other character in the film. He knows what he wants and is determined to get it regardless of whether it is what his ex-wife wants.
I always considered Novak underrated in Picnic and she's even better here. She conveys an insecurity mixed with determination about Betty that is as delicate a balancing act as I've ever seen. She wants to trust her love for Jerry but is so fragile she can't trust herself to be worthy of his love. At the same time, she loves the way he makes her feel special and finds that so different from everyone else in her life, she's willing to navigate the venom and BS thrown at her by all her friends and relatives. It's an incredibly complex and simple performance at the same time. I was almost awestruck.
All fairly compelling so far, right? So why didn't I give this a 9 or a 10 (Marty is a 10 in my book and a 10+ if IMDb would allow such a rating)? March's chemistry with Novak does not match hers with him in far too many of their scenes. March, of course, is a magnificent and accomplished actor who has given some of the most memorable performances on film (my favorite 0 Best Years of Our Lives). But he also can over-emote and connect more with the camera than with his love interest at times. Unfortunately, that happens here quite a bit. And his jealousy borne-out-of-insecurity seems to express itself too self-righteously given hid character and feelings - at least to me. When he allows himself to make eye contact with Betty, it is like day from night. In those scenes, the romance seems and feels genuine even when they are having rough spots (such as in the car toward the early middle of the film). On the other hand, March's chemistry with his threatened sister and with daughter Joan Copeland is perfect. He just seems to prefer the camera to Novak when his character is starting to convince himself that the doubters are right. These disconnections do not by an means ruin the film for me. I enjoyed it and wish to watch it again. It just stops it from being a classic for me.
I still recommend watching it - especially if you love Marty.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Liam Neeson embodies Bloch's detective Matt Scudder, a reformed
alcoholic, in expert fashion. He captures his character's regret,
angst, expertise, solemn commitment, cynicism, balance by a strong
desire to make amends except when doing so would harm others. For all
of us Neeson fans and perhaps even the uninitiated if there are any,
this is a great start. But that's it. The movie goes through its paces
trying to find an psychotic pair of deadly efficient ex-DEA serial
killers who extort money from their victims before killing them. Doing
so immerses the guilt-ridden Neeson (from killing a kid while pursuing
3 bad guys while a bit drunk) into the worlds of organized and
disorganized drug dealers. These worlds are ones we have encountered in
countless TV shows and movies also based in New York. With a cast of
little known actors of workmanlike but unexceptional talent (at least
as shown in this movie) and with a script mostly bereft of humor,
Neeson has to be the whole show. And his character is one-note,
changing little, and experiencing little growth beyond his hallowed
The one exception is the young actor Astro as TJ. His relationship with Scudder gives the film life and gives us a rooting interest in things. It's a solid supporting turn that imbues an otherwise relentlessly grim movie with some humor and empathy, something sorely lacking through most of it. Neeson and Astro are almost enough to make us forget that there are no clever plot twists, no revelations, no intriguing insights, just hunting down and killing the psychos. I checked the spoiler box if you consider the fact that Neeson's Scudder prevails over the psycho as spoiling the world's most predictable ending. Overall, this is certainly a watchable movie but it lacks anything special and is relentlessly grim.
I enjoyed this movie quite a bit for what is. It provided humor in 3
forms: sight gags; repartee; and inside jokes. I just loved Robert
Davi's cameo and Arnold's crack about marriage. The movie was two hours
short - in that it flew by and I didn't look at my watch once. But I
must admit, the movie may have gotten an extra half-star or more from
me because my local movie multiplex gave me what I was looking for
most: blissful air conditioning. Judging by the number of other seniors
in the audience on a 90+ degree September day in its fourth week of
release, I would say we weren't the only ones looking for heat relief
with unchallenging popcorn action and humor. And that's what we got.
One thing that made this movie one cut above most action films for me was the villain, (Mad) Max Stonebanks, played to the hilt by Mel Gibson - so convincingly mercenary and smug, I came close to rooting for him. OK, he's no Hans Gruber - but who is? After that, he's probably in my top 3 of action hero villains in the past 40 years. He chews up the scenery but always in the framework of who he is. A wonderful surprise for me was Harrison Ford playing the agency desk jockey in what I assumed was a cameo role. It turned out to be a major role and he provided a wonderful counterpoint for both Arnold and Sly. It almost goes without saying that Jason Statham continues to be one of my favorite action movie stars while Lundgren and Couture got to give their best performances in the series. Sly was Sly - not as good as he was in the first one, but a good straight man to Statham and Kelsey Grammar (speaking of wonderful mercenaries) and the young kids. I note other criticized the performances of the young actors. I thought the gal and the tech guy were highly engaging and well-suited for their roles. The other two provided beefcake and nothing's wrong with that. The one-joke that played on much too long was Antonio Banderas' character. This is a bit of a shame since Banderas' performance and swagger were dead-on and he still provides eye candy for those so inclined. His character was the supposed comic relief and had so much repetitive screen time for variations on the same joke that it ceased to be funny long before the screenplay continued to tell it. But this is the only irritating note in an otherwise wonderful afternoon.
I came to have fun and I had fun - in blissful air conditioning. I'm happy!
|Page 1 of 20:||          |