Towards the very end of it, there is actually a couple of decent things that happen in _Escape Plan 2_, but this is such a **colossal** step down from the original (which already wasn't exactly the greatest work put to screen), and even removing the comparison the first two thirds (at least) of this movie are genuinely not good.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._
Actor or mimic or both? Philip Seymour Hoffman certainly delivers a plausible and captivating portrayal of the eponymous acclaimed novelist in the late 1950s. He is researching his latest novel when he alights on news of the brutal murder of a Kansas family. Pretty unscrupulously, this rather unfulfilled writer decides this is a rich vein for him to exploit, and so using just about every (legal) means at his disposal manages to ingratiate himself with friends of the victims and then once the police apprehend two suspects, he does the same with Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jnr.). He intends to use the template of this case and the true nature of the personalities to construct a novel - but one based in fact not fiction. What ensues here is quite a cleverly crafted look at just how the shrewd and intelligent man uses his intellect to manipulate the scenario so as to provide him what what he wants, when he wants it - but it also exposes his slightly controlling character to some fault lines. He begins to form a relationship, of sorts, with his quarry - he has a fondness that compromises his objectivity to his story; the accused serves to begin to humanise this rather aloof and frankly quite arrogant figure. There is a distinct power shift here. It's a tightly cast effort this, with most of the emphasis on the efforts of Hoffman, a strong performance from Collins and a useful supporting contribution from Catherine Keener as the foil/conduit for much of her friend Capote's thoughts and behaviour. The style of the production, the attention to detail and the Mychael Danna score all add to the richness of this, admittedly quite speculative, drama that shines a bit of a light not just into what made this man tick, but also just what made the USA tick too.
Motherless Brooklyn’s lead performance recalls two previous Ed Norton outings: Primal Fear and The Score. In the latter two, Norton plays, respectively, a cold-blooded killer posing as a stuttering altar boy, and a thief posing as a mentally-challenged janitor; in the former, he plays Lionel Essrog, a private investigator with Tourette’s syndrome.
The key difference is that Lionel really does have Tourette’s and isn’t just pretending. In Primal Fear and The Score there is a performance-within-a-performance, with the character pulling a Sun Tzu and appearing weak when he’s strong in order to achieve an ulterior goal. Conversely, there is no means-to-an-end scenario in Motherless Brooklyn; the protagonist’s handicap is genuine, and while Norton does this medical condition justice like only he can, it sadly turns out to be a hindrance not only for the character, but also the actor, the movie, and even the audience.
There is enough material here for two films, and Norton, who writes, produces, and directs, neglects to edit; perhaps he should have been as involved in his own movie’s cutting process as he was in American History X’s, instead of leaving the responsibility to the undistinguished Joe Klotz. The first film follows an individual with Tourette’s as he juggles his disorder, his job, and his personal relationships. The second, which doesn’t need the Tourette’s angle, involves a murder mystery that takes us from Harlem’s jazz clubs to Brooklyn’s slums to the drawing rooms of the rich and powerful. Norton would have done well to focus on the first story; first, because of his performance, which strikes a prodigious balance between tactful and funny. And second, because Tourette isn’t the film’s only malady; the plot, such as it is, is a dull intrigue concerning urban renewal and housing relocation – and outside an 80s family comedy wherein the gang must save the old people’s home from being torn down to make room for a parking lot, it is near impossible to take an urban planner seriously as a credible villain, even if he’s played by Alec Baldwin; here’s one turd that not even he can polish.
Baldwin is not the only talented performer whose talent goes to waste here, though. Ethan Suplee, Dallas Roberts, and Leslie Mann show up to push the plot forward, hang around for a couple more scenes, and then disappear without a trace; all of their characters, especially Mann’s, could have been replaced with a little timely exposition. At least Bruce Willis has the decency to die after setting the events of the movie in motion.
Motherless Brooklyn shows much more ambition than Norton’s previous directorial credit, which was also his debut: the romantic comedy Keeping the Faith. That’s the good news. The not-so- good news is that he remains a greater actor than he is a director and scriptwriter. His performance here is flawless, but that doesn’t change the fact that his character has been overwritten.
Overall, the film would be neither better nor worse with or without the whole Tourette’s syndrome stuff, and that leaves us with a feature-length picture where the length has gotten out of hand, and that only rises above mediocrity during Willem Dafoe’s all-too-brief interventions. Unlike Norton, Dafoe is able to convey mental instability more subtly; not with a stutter but with a tone of voice, not in the way he looks but in the way he looks at others. He slow-burns until he reaches the boiling point, and when he does it’s beautiful and terrifying at the same time. His is the most well-rounded character in the movie, and that’s likely more Dafoe’s doing than Norton’s.
It's a difficult task to pace a noir for a modern audience, and you can feel the two and a half hour runtime. The story is interesting and the parallels to America in the present day are welcomed, but there isn't enough tonal balance to contrast all the shadowy moodiness. The plot is on the more convoluted side, and you'd imagine that with it being a story about following a trail of clues, 'Motherless Brooklyn' would reward repeat viewings - but I'm not sure I would optionally sit through all of it again. There is nothing inherently wrong with this film, bar some odd edits and framing choices, and Norton tackles the material fairly well, creating a great tribute to the noir era of filmmaking. It sometimes treads the line of parody rather than homage, but for anyone in the mood for crime mystery in the vein of 'Chinatown' or 'L.A. Confidential', this will absolutely hit the spot.
- Joel Kalkopf
Read Joel's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-motherless-brooklyn-a-neo-noir-set-in-1950s-new-york
**_Looks great and is well acted, but the pacing is turgid_**
>_I raise my stein to the builder who can remove ghettos without removing people as I hail the chef who can make omelettes without breaking eggs._
- Robert Moses; Open letter to Robert Caro, refuting many of the claims in Caro's biography of Moses, _The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York_ (August 26, 1974)
>_Have you ever felt, in the course of reading a detective novel, a guilty thrill of relief at having a character murdered before he can step onto the page and burden you with his actual existence? Detect__ive stories always have too many characters anyway. And characters mentioned early on but never sighted, just lingering offstage, take on an awful portentous quality. Better to have them gone._
- Jonathan Lethem; _Motherless Brooklyn_ (1999)
In his introduction to _The Wire: Truth Be Told_ (the official companion book to the greatest TV show ever made), series creator David Simon writes that although it may appear to be a cop show, in reality, _The Wire_ is "_about politics and sociology, and, at the risk of boring viewers with the very notion, macroeconomics._" In a similar(ish) manner, Jonathan Lethem's 1999 novel _Motherless Brooklyn_ may appear to be an old-fashioned private-eye noir, but in reality, it's about gentrification, institutionalised racism, political corruption, and how such things are woven into New York City's historical fabric. It's about how the city of today was built on the cruelty, prejudice, lies, and unchecked power of yesterday.
Lethem's novel is a fascinating and quintessentially postmodern narrative, fracturing the relationship between the physical and the temporal by taking the sensibilities of 1950s gumshoe noir and supplanting them into an end-of-century _milieu_. On the other hand, the 1957-set film is more literal, less interested in playing with form. Written for the screen, produced, directed by, and starring Edward Norton, this two-decades-in-the-making passion project asks how much corruption are we willing to forgive and whether truth and ideals even matter in a world in which there's a direct confluence between power and amorality. However, far too in reverence to films such as Roman Polański's _Chinatown_ (1974) and Curtis Hanson's _L.A. Confidential_ (1997), _Motherless Brooklyn_ is your average noir mystery – a likable but flawed protagonist begins what seems like a fairly straightforward investigation, only to be led down a rabbit hole of corruption and power games, until he's in the midst of an elaborate political conspiracy. And whilst it's aesthetically impressive (the period detail drips off the screen) and the acting is universally excellent, the film can be spectacularly on the nose and didactic. It also moves at a snail's pace, and Norton is never really able to generate any sense of urgency, making the whole thing feel laborious, and, ultimately, rather pointless.
New York City, 1957. World War II veteran Frank Minna (Bruce Willis) runs a small PI firm, employing Tony Vermonte (Bobby Cannavale), Danny Fantyl (Dallas Roberts), Gilbert Coney (Ethan Suplee), and Lionel Essrog (Norton), all of whom Minna rescued from an abusive orphanage when they were still children. He's most fond of Essrog, who suffers from what we know today as Tourette Syndrome – uncontrollable tics and the tendency to blurt out random words and phrases, which becomes worse when he's nervous. However, he also has a photographic memory. As the film begins, Essrog and Coney are listening in on a clandestine meeting between Minna and unidentified parties. When the meeting becomes contentious, tragedy strikes, and although none of Minna's staff know who he was meeting or what he was investigating, Essrog determines to get to the bottom of the case, slowly unearthing a labyrinthine conspiracy involving local government, urban redevelopment plans, and housing relocation programs. Along the way, he encounters Laura Rose (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), an activist campaigning against gentrification; Moses Randolph (Alec Baldwin), a powerful real estate developer who plans to expand New York's road network and build multiple new bridges despite the fact that to do so, he'll have to demolish several lower-income neighbourhoods; Paul (Willem Dafoe), an engineer who has a history with Randolph; Gabby Horowitz (Cherry Jones), the leader of the activist group of which Laura is a member; a brilliant but mysterious jazz musician (Michael K. Williams); Julia Minna (Leslie Mann), Frank's wife; William Lieberman (Josh Pais), Randolph's right-hand man; Lou (Fisher Stevens), one of Randolph's thugs; and Billy Rose (Robert Wisdom), Laura's father and the owner of a jazz club at the centre of the mystery.
Anyone familiar with the novel will immediately recognise that Norton has made sweeping changes, not just in terms of relocating the story to 1957 (thus making explicit what was so indelibly postmodern in the book), but so too in terms of plot and character. The most significant addition is Moses Randolph, who's clearly based on New York's so-called "master builder" Robert Moses, the man largely responsible for the city's high-way infrastructure, the departure of the Brooklyn Dodgers to LA, the development of Long Island, whose controversial philosophies regarding urban redevelopment continue to be implemented all over the world, and who once held 12 civil service titles (including President of the Long Island State Park Commission, Chairman of the New York State Council of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Secretary of State of New York, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and Commissioner of the New York City Department of City Planning) despite never being elected to public office. Operating with almost complete autonomy from regulatory oversight, Moses was a narcissist obsessed with power, and an amoral racist, and so too is the character in the film. Indeed, although the film is ostensibly based on Lethem's novel, it contains more than a hint of Robert Caro's magisterial Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Moses, _The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York_ (1974).
_Motherless Brooklyn_'s most obvious strength is its aesthetic, about which I really can't say enough. The production design by Beth Mickle (_Drive_; _Only God Forgives_; _Lost River_), the art direction by Michael Ahern (_Stake Land_; _Arbitrage_; _The Drop_), and the costume design by Amy Roth (_Top Five_; _Two Night Stand_; _Indignation_) are all exceptional, contributing to the nuanced and immersive period-specific tone, with the milieu feeling lived-in and completely authentic.
Norton's direction is, for the most part, straightforward and unfussy, but one visual motif he uses several times is shooting directly from Essrog's POV. First-person shots in cinema are infrequent enough that when a director uses the technique a few times, it stands out. What's most interesting here is when Norton uses it – three scenes in which Essrog is lying on his back either currently being beaten up, or having recently been beaten up. It's a nice (if somewhat unsubtle) directorial choice, drawing us directly into Essrog's experience, but only when he's at his most vulnerable. On the other hand, the tonally inconsistent use of dream scenes is far less effective, feeling as if they're from another film entirely.
In terms of the decision to set the film in the 50s, it actually makes sense. One of the reasons the novel works so well is because the modern setting clashes with the mannerisms of the characters, the style of the dialogue, the cadences of the plot, all of which are straight out of classic 40s and 50s noir. The effect of this is quintessentially postmodern – a self-reflexive pastiche that's drawn from both the 50s and the 90s, and yet which belongs to neither. And although this works tremendously on the page, Norton argued (correctly, I think) that to try to replicate this on film – have the story set in 2019 (or even 1999), but told in the manner of a classic noir – wouldn't work, as it would send mixed and confusing messages to the audience.
And so, he simply relocated the story to the time-period which underpins the style of the novel. With this in mind, the film features many of the trappings of classic noir – the world-weary private eye, the laconic voiceover speaking directly to the audience from an unspecified point in time, the seemingly important clues which ultimately lead nowhere, the seemingly irrelevant clues which ultimately lead somewhere, the smooth (so smooth) jazz score, the smoky (so smoky) jazz clubs, the chiaroscuro lighting (albeit very restrained), the antagonist who seems to see all, the political corruption. There's even a scene in which Essrog finds an address written on a pack of matches. About the only thing missing is a femme fatale, although there is a woman who may (or may not) know more than she's letting on.
For all its thematic importance and laudable aesthetic aspects, however, I found _Motherless Brooklyn_ disappointing. For one thing, there's the pacing, which is so lacking in forward-momentum that the story is practically somnolent. The narrative is unfocused and flabby, needing at least one more editorial pass, occasionally doubling back on itself and wasting time giving the audience information we already possess. Partly because of this, it's a good 20 minutes too long (at least), and much of it feels like padding – characters that do nothing, clues that lead nowhere, scenes which don't advance the story or develop the characters. I understand Norton wanted to let the material breath (the novel is around 300 pages), but there's a difference between giving the characters and themes room to develop and stalling for the sake of it, and so much of the film feels like the latter.
There's also a significant disconnect between the politics and the detective story. In _Chinatown_, everything feels organic – the personal and the political are intertwined, with the political elements never feeling artificially shaped so as to fit a generic template, or the genre structure never feeling artificially bolstered with extraneous political elements. In _Motherless Brooklyn_, however, Norton is never really able to integrate the two, leading to a kind of identity crisis, with the film unable to find a comfortable middle ground – in trying to be both a noir mystery and a societal commentary, it ends up as neither. Another issue is that because the novel features 50s values displaced into the last years of the century, the endemic racism is deeply disturbing – society today is more enlightened about such things, but here's a novel in which characters are acting like it's 40 years prior despite being set in a modern _milieu_. This is a vital part of Lethem's postmodernist deconstruction of power structures. However, with the film set in the actual 1950s, the racism just comes across as period-appropriate window dressing, losing virtually all of its thematic potency.
An old-fashioned detective story with a lot on its mind, Norton's passion for the material is self-evident. However, that passion hasn't translated into an especially good film. Void of almost any tension, although it looks great, _Motherless Brooklyn_ fails to unify its genre elements and its political preoccupations, resulting in a film unsure of its own identity and unable to make us care about much of what it depicts.
**A film unjustly forgotten these days.**
I confess that I didn't quite know what to expect from this movie. All I knew was that it was wildly successful in the decade it was released, and that nowadays hardly anyone remembers it. It is directed by Luc Besson, a French director whom I respect and consider competent.
The screenplay is based on the relationship between Jacques and Enzo (I assume one will be French and the other Italian). They are childhood friends, but grow apart shortly after the accidental death of Jacques' father. Already in adult life, the two become apnea diving champions and rivals for the world title of the specialty. The story works reasonably well, but it skids a lot on the amorous subplot created around the character of Johana Baker, which feels very underwritten.
The film has a strong French cast led effectively by Jean Reno, who is one of the best French actors working today, at least for me. He gives his character a dour humor and a certain sassiness that I felt was very fitting. Jean-Marc Barr also does a good job, but he lacks Reno's charisma and presence. Rosanna Arquette is beautiful, elegant, but nothing more than a pretty face for the film. The material she received is downright poor.
Luc Besson likes the sea, and films where the cinematography and the soundtrack artistically dominate and absorb our senses. With this film, he gives us all that, in generous doses, thanks to the beauty of the Mediterranean Sea, magnificently filmed in superb scenes, below and above the water level, and to an excellent soundtrack, by Eric Serra. The editing was also very well directed and the film has a very pleasant pace. All of these are reasons to revisit and revalue a film that seems to me to be unfairly forgotten.
Introspective story with a good Jean Reno and innocent Rosanna Arquette.
Sound track, for those loving Eric Sierra. Not for all tastes. A little bit too long but entartaining.
Brilliant
I started watching this movie without much expectations, and it turned out to be a fabulous one.
Nice drama, and gripping tension. Candid moments keeps you on the edge. Nicely executed with a satisfactory ending.
I loved this movie.
I wasn't introduced to Jeremy Saulnier until _Green Room_, and though I do think that was most certainly a superior film, it's clear to me now as I work backwards through his filmography that the guy has always had a talent.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
This is one I've watched a few times over the years and it's still great with each viewing. John Travolta and Nancy Allen give great performances and although it's not one of these thrill-a-minute films, it still maintains the suspense throughout. It's one of the gems for Brian De Palma. **4.5/5**
_**Colorful De Palma crime mystery with Travolta and Lithgow**_
A sound effects man in Philadelphia (John Travolta) obtains evidence that a fatal accident involving the governor wasn’t really an accident, which thrusts him into danger with shady characters. John Lithgow, Dennis Franz and Nancy Allen are all somehow involved in the nefarious conspiracy.
Written & directed by Brian De Palma, "Blow Out” (1981) is a crime drama/thriller whose colors, artistic style, cast and Philadelphia locations make it worthwhile. It’s similar to Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Conversation” (1974) but more dynamic. Allen plays a ditzy character, yet is alluring and enjoyable, while Travolta is in his prime. Meanwhile Lithgow makes for a great shady character.
I loved the colorful, well-staged sequence under the Henry Avenue Bridge, but started to lose interest in the second half for some reason. The storytelling became increasingly contrived. Nevertheless, respectable critics rave about this flick.
The film runs around 1 hour, 48 minutes, and was shot in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; with additional stuff done in New York City and Burbank, California.
GRADE: B-
Superior entry on De Palma's CV.
Brian De Palma has always gotten a bad rap for his penchant for essaying his heroes and favourite thrillers, what often gets forgotten is just how great he could be in crafting said thrillers.
Blow Out has John Travolta as a sound engineer for low budget horror movies, who while out recording sounds one night witnesses a car crash and dives into the river to rescue the call girl trapped in the back seat (Nancy Allen). Upon listening back to the footage of the crash, he hears two noises which point to a gun shot being fired at the car. So with the dead man in the car turning out to be a big political mover, he quickly finds himself spun into a web of intrigue, peril, paranoia and conspiracies. Can he and the girl stay alive long enough to solve the case?
Blow Out finds De Palma at the top of his game, blending the twisty plot dynamics with virtuoso technical smarts. A number of scenes are striking, both visually and in execution and the garnering of acting performances. Pino Donaggio provides an unforgettable music score to marry up to the layers of sub-plots folding together, and cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond sharpens the primary colours (pic is awash with lurid pinks and purples - true neo-noir style) to give the story a Giallo like sheen that runs concurrent with the emotional states of the major players.
A sprawling and bustling Philadelphia plays host to a conspiracy sandwich, with a corking side order of the film making process. Sometimes bleak and complex (how great it is to find a true noir finale), but never over stuffed, Blow Out is both thrilling and smart, while Travolta has never been better and John Lithgow is tailor made as the unstoppable crack-pot unleashed into our two protagonists' world. 9/10
I am not sure how much actual acting Arnold Schwarzenegger had to do in this rather derivative crime caper. A bit like John Wayne in "Brannigan" (1975), he is despatched to partner up with a cop abroad to order to repatriate a dangerous criminal. In this case, though, he is a Russian and it is wise-cracking American "Ridzik" (Jim Belushi) that he must bridge the culture-gap and work with to track down a murderous drug dealer who did for his partner and fled. To be fair to Arnie, he has his tongue a bit in his cheek here, but Belushi just mis-fires once too often in this rather sloppy adventure. The escapades are all rather predictable and the underlying joke/scenario wears thin all too quickly. I suppose it nods a little to the thawing in the post-Reagan relationship between the USA and the Soviet Union, but the delivery borders on the slapstick at times and I was never really a fan of Belushi's brand of rather puerile comedy - indulged in spades here by a trio of writers including the usually far more reliable Troy Kennedy Martin. It passes the time effortlessly enough, and reminds us who lived through that period of just how dodgy some of our fashions were, but thereafter it's all pretty mediocre fayre.
Look out Chicago, Arnie & Jimmy are loose on the streets.
Captain Ivan Danko (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is a no nonsense Soviet cop who is sent to Chicago to pick up a murdering Russian drug dealer. Upon arriving in the windy city, Danko is teamed with Art Ridzik (James Belushi), a wise-cracking street cop notorious for cutting corners to get the job done. Complete polar opposites, both men form an unlikely alliance as Danko's Soviet methods blend with Ridzik's free spirited street wise techniques.
There were quite a few buddy buddy films around in the 1980s, certainly the teaming of unlikely cop partners was nothing new at the time of Red Heat's release. Yet for all it's obvious reliance on clichés, and its out dated Russian/American guffaws, Red Heat is a romping, violent and funny picture. Pairing the big Austrian Oak Schwarzenegger with the Americana that is James Belushi pays off in bundles. Yes it's sometimes crass, but Belushi's cocky mannerisms play off Schwarzenegger's robotic frame with comedic joy. All played out in amongst carnage and murder created by director Walter Hill, who is quite frankly, and thankfully, just extending the formula that he started in 1982 with 48 Hrs.
The support cast is not to be sniffed at either. Peter Boyle, Ed O'Ross, Laurence Fishburne, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Brion James and Gina Gershon. All line up to add fuel to the Arnie and Jimmy fire. Also good to see is that Hill shot on location in Illinois and Moscow to give the film some scenic impetus, whilst James Horner's score is suitably bombastic and at one with the material. It's no rocket scientist who observes a film like this and calls it popcorn fodder, because it so obviously is. But within its buddy buddy framework lies a very quotable film that's essential for fans of Arnie & Jimmy. Sometimes that's all one needs from a film like this. 7/10
Entertaining enough buddy-cop movie has some fun action scenes (the bus chase sequence was great). Only thing holding it back was the pairing of Schwarzenegger and Belushi never quite worked for me. Still a good flick from Walter Hill, though not sure it ranks all that high compared with others from the era. **3.5/5**
Decent watch, probably won't watch again, but can recommend.
While it isn't anything truly special, it's a decent version of a "journalist in disguise falls in love" trope. Though the object of affection being a prince allows for resources that almost anyone wouldn't turn down.
There certainly is a lot of production put into the movie to maintain the grand perception of royals, but the best part of the movie is the heart felt Christmas vibe of it.
Unfortunately, this is mostly achieved through the secondary characters and them influencing the royal family.
First of all, the acting in this film isn’t that bad. You can easily tell that everybody is trying their hardest to portray these characters. Some of them came across as real-life people while others just felt like characters in a movie. This could mainly be pointed to the writing in this film. Some of the lines in this film were just hilariously bad and cringy and I would give examples but I already forgot them. But I do have to say the scenery was stunning and the production on this was well done. Each set and costume looked perfect for each scene. The costumes fit each character and showed a bit more into their personality. For example, Richard’s outfits made him look like royalty but at the same time, a normal guy because that’s what he wants to be. This film had lots of pacing issues. From beginning to end it didn’t feel like that was the speed it should be going at. The beginning felt slow while the ending felt to fast. The creators of the film might have thought they had a longer film and then realized they only had a one hour and thirty-two-minute film so they had to quickly resolve the film. The last thing I want to talk about is the relationship in this film. It’s not believable or relatable. I know it shouldn’t be relatable seeing how it is about a journalist falling in love with a prince but the writers still should make it so some people can relate to at least one of them. And it isn’t believable because it seems too rushed. Throughout the entire film, they are hardly around each other and then all of a sudden he just loves her. There is no explanation why just little subtle hints. In the end, A Christmas Prince is perfect for people who like RomComs but for others not so much. I give A Christmas Prince a 6/10.
Craig Roberts brings an engagingly mischievous charm to his role here as the pubescent teenager "Oliver". Like most of us at that age, he is obsessed with sex. "Jordana" (Yasmin Paige) is the object of his desires. Meantime, his mother "Jill" (Sally Hawkins) is having a bit of a crisis of her own with her rocky marriage to the well meaning but rather drippy "Lloyd" (Noah Taylor) being undermined by the arrival, next door of her ex-lover; the charismatic and way more hip "Graham" (Paddy Considine). The next ninety minutes or so see the young man try to manoeuvre his way into the arms of his beloved whilst simultaneously ensuring he torpedoes any chance of a reconciliation between his mum and her former beau. It's an ensemble effort, really. Roberts stands out, but the others all contribute well to this well and pithily written story of angst (for all ages). It's witty, sharp and offers us quite a recognisable glimpse of - quite frequently cringeworthy and embarrassing - family life where crises are never far from the corn flakes. You might never look at a giraffe the same way again... Well worth a watch, this - but perhaps not with your kids (or if you are friendly with the guy next door!).
Well, it has less that 5 Stars and I think that is a very good thing. Less than a year ago giving a movie like "What Men Want" anything less than a perfect score would have created a Ghostbusters style backlash to anyone that even remotely suggested it might not be better than The Godfather.
And then Oceans 8 flopped...and got mainly positive reviews based principally out of fear...and had a cast that mostly seemed disinterested in attacking absolutely everyone that didn't buy a ticket.
Now it seems that that critics are OK with giving it a low rating, so long as they still only praise it in the prose review...just in case.
So, think of it like the Gibson version of "What Women Want" and then make it raunchy and vulgar to the point of repulsion with views of the opposite sex that would get a lot of men arrested.
And then think if it as slightly androphobic...and slightly as in the androphobia is racially based which makes it clear that the message of this film is to virtue signal how woke the they are by making it clear that a certain skin color and gender are evil.
In other-words, it's kind of like the original "Birth of a Nation" with it's propagandist depiction of race...meets a romantic Comedy written and directed by Andrew Dice Clay.
Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
While it's potentially problematic for many of the same reasons for the Mel Gibson "What Women Want", I think this is a much better version, and a good modernization. It's also a good way to shift it to a "black movie".
Taraji P. Henson does an excellent job carrying the movie and it is full of good humor, and exciting moments.
The movie does send a little bit of a mixed message as it seems to indicate that a woman needs to be a man in order to play in a man's world, but it feels more like its about it not being a man's world.
This is a good time, my only concern is that she's not a very likable character at the start of the movie.
I knew there was a What a Women Want reboot in the works, and my interest was **zero**.
I heard they were flipping the script a la genders, and it was still zee - row.
Cast Taraji P. Henson in the lead and I was like: "Fuck... I'm gonna have to watch this now aren't I?"
And so I did. But I probably shouldn't have.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._
**_Fun 80’s flick starts shallow, gets deeper_**
Bent on financial success, a young ex-soldier (Tom Cruise) becomes an expert bartender in Manhattan while attending college in order to make it on Wall Street. Then a dream surfaces to establish a nightclub in Jamaica. Bryan Brown plays his cynical mentor while Elisabeth Shue and Lisa Banes are on hand as romantic interests.
“Cocktail” (1988) is an entertaining Cruise-led 80’s flick that starts energetic, amusing and shallow but, thankfully, fleshes out the characters for something deeper. It’s fun in a snappy way, yet hindered by a feeling of unreality in the first half, which is resolved in the second.
Brown is reminiscent of Michael Caine while Shue is in her prime, although her beauty isn’t fully captured as it was in “The Karate Kid” and the later “Leaving Las Vegas” (the fools). Laurence Luckinbill shows up in the last act; he would go on to superbly play Sybok in “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier” the next year.
The ending is fine, but a bar is a bar, a place where people get soused. You can make a good living from it, sure, but does that benefit or deter humanity in the grand scheme of things?
The film runs 1 hour, 43 minutes, and was shot in Toronto and Ocho Rios, Jamaica.
GRADE: B
There was something about Tom Cruise in this film that shows him at his most engaging and fun. His character "Brian" wants to get on in life - but at every turn his limited of education gets in the way. Despondent, he heads to a bar where he encounters "Doug" (Bryan Brown) and next thing we know, he is a cocktail barman. A bit slow to start off with, but soon he has the clientele eating out of his hand as his charm and cheekiness soon show he has a real skill for this job. The first half hour or so are actually quite lively and entertaining. We also get a sense of just how hard - manic, even - it is to be behind the bar in a busy venue - maybe I will show a little more patience next time I have to wait for my Sauvignon Blanc (though probably not!). The bulk of the film, though, is really weak and feeble. He falls in love, cheats, falls out of love, drops the bottle, does he or doesn't he get the girl (Elisabeth Shue)? Then the film is tinged with a little bit of tragedy just in case the fluffiness of it all was making us light-headed. The ending is sort of imposed upon us, and after 100 minutes it took it's time to deliver the obvious. If you don't drink, you'll almost certainly hate it. If you do drink, then you will probably still not rate it much, but at least you will learn how to put fruit juice in a martini!
The "Gardner" family hope to escape the rat-race by moving to a rural New England farm where they can settle and enjoy the peace and quiet. Ha, not for long though. A giant meteorite crash lands into their garden and before long it seems to be exuding a menacing glow that is corrupting all it touches. "Nathan" (Nicolas Cage) and "Theresa" (Joely Richardson) are initially more perplexed than anything else, but gradually he starts to lose his grip on reality and what ensues becomes more dangerous for just about everyone as the alien entity encroaches with a clear desire to take over the place - if not the entire world. There are some fun moments in this, not least from the hammy Cage who just let's run with his character and from the young "Jack" (Julian Hilliard) who obsesses about his pal in the well whilst his mother carelessly amputates a few of her fingers! It looks ike it might be down to their ageing hippie neighbour "Ezra" (the scene stealing Tommy Chong) and to the visiting "Ward" (Elliot Knight) who seems to be able to keep a clear head - he also fancies the daughter, to rescue them from a fate worse than death. The visual effects are basic and rely heavily on colour, splodges of goo, and shotgun fire and there is maybe a little more comedy here than director Richard Stanley intended as the films starts to take the shape of a 1970s edition of "Dr. Who". It is watchable, and Cage just about holds it together - but the story is strung out far too thinly and the pace struggles to keep going for all but two hours.
This movie is slow paced, builds up action for the ending which is worth the watch. Brilliant sci fi film based on Lovecraftian tale.
" _**The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown**_ " -H.P.Lovecraft
It is very difficult to make a film adaptation of any H.P.Lovecraft short story. When an author aims to paint an image of the Unknown through poetic mastery it makes the task immensely difficult for any Director who refuses to alter the story itself. It was truly an incomprehensible mystery which ultimately ends and I wondered what was it that I had just watched? Then I realized I felt the same way when I read his short story years ago. I loved both.
It was intriguing, eerie, unpredictable and disturbing. Watch it for the art of the images as well as for the beauty behind the complexity of the writer who has a level of Linguistic Intelligence very few will ever understand. Including myself. Being able to make someone feel disturbed without using any violence or excess of violence is what I feel is pure Horror. Which is what H.P. Lovecraft believed and excelled at.
That being said the Director did an amazing work of art. It was beautiful to look at, the images were fantastic and it gets a solid 8.5/10 from me.
_Parental Advisory_: **16+**
This is not a film for children or even young teenagers. It has no violence however it displays gore and blood in several scenes to a 7/10 intensity at its peak. It can create a very eerie and edgy ambience throughout the second half that creeps up on you and before you know it you might feel very uncomfortable.
-_**eQuilibrium**_
A thoughtless adaption of one of Lovecraft's most recognizable stories. The film maker clearly failed to grasp the themes of Lovecraft and only took notice of the most obvious surface elements. Coupled with lazy direction that produces some of the most unintentionally funny moments I've ever seen in a "thriller", shallow characters that seemingly have no motivation for their actions beyond the trope that they represent, and a heavy pile of cgi. It is my opinion that this is one of many attempts at production companies trying to cash in on the resurgence of Lovecraftian horror in the public eye.
_Colour Out of Space_ was one of the biggest joys that 2019 cinema brought me. I was genuinely thrilled by it from about fifteen minutes in right up until the credits rolled. Not to mention for several days afterwards.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._
Trippy movie for sure, but having never read anything from H.P. Lovecraft, probably don't appreciate it compared to most but visually interesting and also bizarre, felt like Close Encounters of the Third Kind meets Donnie Darko. One thing setting it back was some, presumably, unintentionally funny scenes, one where Cage yells at some fruit. But his performance was alright, and young Madeleine Arthur was probably the standout.
I don't know how to feel, certainly does stand out from the rest in terms of horror-sci-fi, I'll give it that much. **3.0/5**
Combining the unholy trio of Nicolas Cage, H.P. Lovecraft and Richard Stanley seems like insane brilliance on paper, which is why it’s so disappointing that ‘Color Out of Space’, despite some interesting themes and reverence to alpacas, is a bit of a slog.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-color-out-of-space-a-messy-fusion-of-sci-fi-horror-and-comedy
CinePops US / International 
CinePops Spain 
CinePops France 
CinePops Italy 
CinePops România 
CinePops India 
