kennethraine

I watched it last night. I expected a spy story, with such a cast ,a sophisticated spy story. If I can imagine a scenario that fits just what I saw, I would say its just as if an amateur writer was asked to have a crack at a spy story. Listed before the writer were several plotlines that had to be fulfilled, including a certain kind of ending. Using that information just go ahead and do your best with the development of the story. The characters were not developed so as to have any sort of opinion about anything that happened to them. The disjointed plot just dragged all the players toward a contrived pre ordained ending. It wasn't enjoyable because the characters, plot, and story development were not consistent with each other. Sometimes spy stories can be puzzlingly complex, but this one was puzzlingly amateurish.

Watched it last night, and the first thing that struck me was how cheaply made it was. It reminded me of Arnolds "Aftermath". A rented lot, a shoestring budget, a bare bones story, a trite script, all amounting to an insult to the viewing public. Its OK for stars to make a movie to make money, but at least make a good movie, the gratuity was palpable. The trend was first noticed on films with Bruce Willis, who I now call the cameo kid, for some reason he doesn't care anymore, and just takes the cheque. There was an upside, and a surprising one, Taissa Farmiga, who acted everyone off the screen. The lady has instinct, the ability and enthusiasm to inject originality, on the hoof. The trend is disturbing, go back to quality, it delights and in the process makes money.

You tend to get used to the ratings of critics. Yet if I see a rating of two stars, I tend to think, "Two stars, it can't be any good".Anyone who has not viewed this film, ignore the critique, and marvel at a film, which though the story is unlikely[ which may have put "stuff shirt" critics off] its so brilliantly done, its one of those packages which has a team who love what they are doing, a director who attracts a brilliant photographer, which influence top notch actors to the project. So what do you get here, great action great dialogue great direction & photography professional production, the best actors, loving the experience, and the viewer, that's you guys get lucky, sit comfortably stack a few cans and join in on the best back seat driving you ever had.

I was breathless many times during the viewing of this film, not through excitement, or surprise, but exasperation. How could anyone make such a poor film, insult so many audiences, and still not be aware that his favourite blithering idiot could have done a much better job. It kept disappointing on so many levels, that you could have been forgiven for believing, he was after the worst picture of the century award. Believe me he needn't have tried so hard. It was a blatant copy of several modern westerns of the same genre. It won't be sited for plagiarism, for the simple reason that no one in his right mind, would turn up to court for the fear of derogatory association. From continuity, choppy shot changes, meaningless transition of plot, it had all the ingredients of" Arthurs" burnt cake. On second thoughts he may have been trying to impress his favourite blithering idiot, I have news for him, he walked out after the first reel.

We will know the true story behind this eternal puzzle, when? 2038 75 years after the event. If they don't know, what is there to reveal? I can smell the cover up on this treatment. A rumour re the CIA and JFK's bodyguards may have some credibility, its nothing to do with this version of events. Had it not been for the Abraham Zapruda tape, it would have been easier to cover up. As it was, and still is, the film continues to defy the explanation of a lone shooter. The final, awful, disgusting shot, that jerked his head backwards, propelling a piece of his skull towards the rear of the car, would appear to be a shot taken from the front, and to the right, and somewhat level, or only slightly above the vehicle containing JFK. Why would all the obvious conclusions appear to have a diametrically opposite explanation, and that explanation the one the authorities seem to favour? Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby on my fifteenth birthday in 1963. So like a host of people out there, I've never accepted the standard explanations. Actually I think I've worked the whole thing out, but cannot reveal it here. Lets just say justice was done, not in the usual way, and if you can wait till 2038[ I will be 90yrs old if I make it], you'll know it too.

Like a film made with two directors, the good one goes for a coffee the less capable one takes over. You have a mix of electric brutal well staged violence mixed with slow poorly put together, comically inappropriate scenes. The start in the store is poorly staged, and you think, who would do it this way, except a geek volunteering for 99yrs on death row. The villain Hagan, played by the totally unconvincing Vincent D'onofrio [ one of the worst actors in the film, to be kind maybe he was miscast] had no impact. Another scene with Josh and Rosario as sitting targets to a snipers telescopic rifle, sees them dancing about like sitting ducks at 250yds while she returns fire with a pistol, suicide jockey doesn't come near. Bruce pro-cameo where's the pay check Willis was totally unnecessary, his scene in the warehouse where he fronts Hagan does blah blah then exits kicking the s--t out of a gunzle on the way, he saunters out with his back to about six gorillas armed to the teeth, who do nothing unrealistic? cool? pointless? you choose its in there. The torture at the table brilliant and brutal, but reluctant heroes throwing up, no especially firemen, they go through everything, just a whispered "Its not like me" would have elicited an audience smirk. The best scene? The utterly brilliant interaction between Josh and Richard Schift under the sprinkler, acting direction, meaning, dialogue, worthy of the absolute best. The finish was also very good. The inconsistencies were irritating, the good bits surprisingly good. Well worth a watch you'll say "if only" but overall you should enjoy it.

I read the reviews on this site, and Rotten Tomatoes, they were 90% negative. I thought I'll give it a view anyway, I can always switch over if it's truly as bad as they report. It starts off and the premise is very promising, a student notices on a gambling site, a statistical variation that is unlikely to be genuine. He decides to confront the Big Boss in person. The story develops from there, with authentic well delivered dialogue. What the critics appear to have dismissed as slick and contrived is actually how the gambling business works, its an industry, a very professionally run industry .Every machine takes a pre- arranged percentage, every game works on a pre- determined margin. The story develops well the action is good. Even the ending would have been OK if it had had the build up and tension up to that point. It was just that last reel that detached itself from the preceding film. I would have given it eight with a consistent finale, a much better film than the critique suggests.

This film is of the eccentric genre much like Harold Pinters The Caretaker. I felt, given the dialogue it should have been hilarious instead of quite continuously full of giggles, which it undoubtedly was. There is always a danger in transferring the written word from book form to stage play or film, in that meaning, nuance and timing are detrimentally changed. I think this is a case in point, though personally its at the "feel" level, i.e. I am aware something is just missing without knowing what it is in specific terms. I wonder if the author was collaborative and approving of Steve Kloves screenplay.It was as if sometimes the eccentric build up needed a conclusion or a punch line, even a throw away line. Even in excellent subtle work, the conclusion has to be "packaged" in nuance. I still loved its comical eccentricity, yet I sensed a work of genius unrealised.

This film is remarkable for several reasons. The first is that it does not take sides in order to glorify any one philosophy. Another is its brilliant depiction of the people who are "good" at war, sadistic,distorted, prejudiced, brutal people, on both or even all sides of the conflict. Which seems to declare, war happens, it is wrong, and the reason it is wrong, is it attracts people who are almost caricatures of evil.But what most surprised and delighted me was Brad Pits performance, an actor I had dismissed as just a pretty boy, playing himself, with empty swagger[ a la Tom Cruise, except for collateral, brilliant ]. Even in Spy Games with Robert Redford, always masterful, he played Brad [ bad boy swagger Pit]. In this film he gave a flawless, awesome performance, albeit brutally distasteful. Close ups, vocal delivery, gestures, timing, come on Brad always get it so right.

The problem with Bond films is the insistence on the same or similar formula. This tends to rule out or at least inhibit the development of a good storyline. Having read all Ian Flemings books, I wish just one would start in his apartment, early morning, does his press ups, prepares his scrambled eggs etc, instead of always a precipitous action start. Having said that Skyfall must be one of the best beginnings to any Bond film. The first twenty minutes was spectacular and beautifully filmed. When the adverts came on I just said, "follow that". This is where it fell down ,it couldn't. The story reverted to the usual formulaic pattern, and the script was frankly sub standard. I know the one liners are usually quite corny, but at least they are funny, though nearly absent in this film. After all this criticism I must add the acting was excellent,and the song and singing from Adele brilliant. So my thoughts are, better story, sharper more sophisticated script, and save some from the first 20 minutes for the rest of the film.

I was frankly quite surprised after reading all the good reviews, that this film ,in my opinion is not even average. It starts out by implying with stills only, the families history. We witness so called violence [ red spray on glass and a bang] and ill advised, disorganised, retribution without disguise and attempts to cover their own tracks [ mandatory unless you actually like incarceration]One family member who possesses a powerful rifle or shotgun, the acquisition of which the film dwells on, actually runs away and is shot in the back, when he actually out guns them and could have shot half of them with four shots.It finishes up with the most taciturn member of the cast and the worst actor again spraying the camera with red paint in conjunction with a bang, after his girlfriend killed for no reason, presumably to facilitate the final scene. One, yes only one good actor, Guy Pearce, good on you mate but even he's a Brit.

I avoided watching this film for ages, Tom Cruise despite his fame, quite often just plays, Tom Cruise. We all know Tom can do the business as in Fourth of July, and especially Collateral. It does remain however I often think I,ll avoid this one. On film four on Mon 10/8/15, I thought OK I,ll give it a look, well surprised doesn,t do it, and this is from a guy a bit resistant to Mr Cruise. Its a gem, but its not usual, it has in built surrealism, its full of action & fun, and I kept thinking, where,s the revelation, when is it going to be explained.Aye there,s the rub, it doesn,t need it, just sit back and enjoy, totally without judgement this splendid happy entertaining journey. It will lift you carry you and delight you, even if you,re not a fan of Tom Cruise.

I watched it last night the other films on offer were disappointing. I have seen it before and had it on tivo. The start, for me was too obvious, and expedient. In fact the whole film seemed geared up to the development of a story, in order to reach a prearranged conclusion. To realise that Scott Frank actually wrote it is even more surprising. The rather ignored theme was the relationship between two differently disabled guys, their dialogue and relationship was the interesting driver of the film. The low life thugs were given too much importance in the film, and too much footage. It seemed like Scott Frank used authentic medical information about the good guys. The conclusion wasn,t developed either for maximum retribution.To Scott Frank I say this, the relationship between the good guys was too underplayed, as for the conclusion, watch a few Clint Eastwood films.

We all watch action movies, some good some bad, I expected the usual but was pleasantly surprised. The action was very good, the crowd scenes were exceptional, it looked so real with hundreds of people instead of just being suggested with close up shots.Then something else, it was not a vehicle for gratuitous action,it did not insert any old dialogue just to pass the time or impress.It was made by people proud to produce quality, if the writer does not have first hand experience in the field, he really listened and understood someone who has. You could sense all the guys wishing they could trust in something, but knowing if they did it would make them vulnerable.If you are not easily impressed this will impress you. The cynicism and lack of trust, really help to illuminate the tacit meaning. Tense,subtle,brutal first class.

Its interesting to observe how different the UK and USA treat serial killers who are almost always psychopathic in their thinking. The USA like to analyse their characters, but the British want to brand them as just evil, in order to distance themselves from them and their behaviour. The Fall is very good drama, and Gillian Andersons style of acting, very brave, in that the poise she exhibits holds her under scrutiny for longer, which requires a very confident actress. It would have been more interesting if a psychiatrist had been included in the drama, as would have most certainly been done in the USA. As it was characters were presented purely for dramatic effect and motives hinted at without professional input.

I saw , quite surprisingly, the critics liked it. I forgot my usual assessment, if the critics like it , beware. I watched the first few minutes and heard the over the top swearing, and had misgivings, don,t get me wrong I,m not averse to swearing, but gratuitous swearing, tends to detract from the content. The film forty eight hours has a great moment, when Nick Nolte,s girlfriend, calls him ,having been stood up for the second time, She says "Jack," he says "Yeh"" F---. you", and puts down the phone , great impact funny, not gratuitous because only a swear word would do. I didn,t continue to watch the film, and could,t see why anyone would like it let alone praise it. Critics seem averse to entertainment, action, or a "feel good story". Prefering some formulaic dreary repetitive "realism" type story.

When I first watched this film I did not know what to expect. But was entertained and delighted by its content and spirit. My first thought was how come nothing quite like this has ever been attempted before. It had all the elements that go to make a great story,the enthusiasm of a yet to make it musician, a responsive youthful group of teenage, gifted but unrealised musicians, a controlling, misguided, but persuadable Establishment, and in the blend, the unauthorised teacher of the group nearly discredited. To top it all a contest was entered by this new group of hopefuls, and after initial resistance and disappointment, a final electric performance, gave them all the prize they deserved. There,s only one thing left to say, "they stuck it to the man".

I have been surprised and dismayed by Broadchurch being rated highly. I thought it was wooden poorly scripted, and contrived. As for the acting, David Tennant, one expression [ Blank stare only, held till his eyes water] And Olivia Coleman as a D.I. all the emotions from A-Z expressed twitchilly and consecutively was absolutely comical,[ D.I.,s expressions rarely shift as they try and illicit emotions from suspects being questioned.]. And it being an award winner, totally reeks of nepotistic collusion. Anyone who has recently viewed the six parter, Happy Valley, I am sure will agree it was far superior, regarding tension and authentic police procedure, with acting especially by Sarah Lancashire, who completely outshone both, Tennant, and Coleman.

I was surprised that this film was made. The spirit is fine the guilty are made to pay. Inside the law, murder is not condoned as an aspect of mitigation. Yes they were guilty, but so was the individual seeking revenge .In the spirit of staying within the law, the story had to be different. If you want death wish 19 fine. The thing is the audience cheer, great, but within the law revenge cannot be condoned, if the assailant is guilty. Make of it what you will, if this story could be passed by the legal profession, Abe, will fall out of his chair. Why are ten lines insisted on, surely its the conciseness,and the quality of the message that matters. The fact remains, the film is promoted on a legal platform, and yet violates its credibility by not being legally correct.