Tenet movie review

“Armed with only one word, Tenet, and fighting for the survival of the entire world, a Protagonist journeys through a twilight world of international espionage on a mission that will unfold in something beyond real time.”

— imdb

As a filmmaker Christopher Nolan likes to take chances. In a CGI riddled film landscape he chooses to film almost entire without it, choosing a refreshing approach to shoot mostly all ‘in camera’. Oftentimes the plots of his movies are complex, multi-layered and, at the very least, interesting.

With Tenet Nolan has created a very polarising film. Some will laud it as a complex masterpiece while others, myself included, think it a messy, sometimes contrived plot littered with single dimensional characters.

It feels very much like a movie that has been edited and reedited to death, almost to the point where you can now see the seams of those edits.

Opening with a blistering pace at a amphiteathre we are introduced to ‘The protagonist’ (John David Washington) as he is unwittingly recruited into an ultra secret espionage group called Tenet. Someone in the future has figured out how to entropy objects, effectively sending them back through the same timeline without having to reverse time itself which has catastrophic implications for humanity, pitching us on course for world war 3 and the end of humanity itself.

The opening of the movie feels extremely disjointed. Introducing us in a very slight way to the character simply called the protagonist. As pitched, he is bond lite. A carbon copy minus the charisma and charm. As played by John David Washington he is almost characterless. Wheter that is down to the endless reams of exposition he is asked to say or the unweildy dialogue itself it is anyones guess.

But what is abundantly clear is the fact that he struggled with it seemingly different from scene to scene. There wasn’t anything for him to cling to to create a character so I would say it is a major flaw of the screenplay. As it stands he is sterile and cold like the plot itself lacking humanity. Which is in counterpoint to the second half of the movie where we are to believe a contrived love connection between himself and Kat, (Elizebeth Debicki) a put upon mol, with litterally zero chemistry between them.

Which places the whole female in jeopardy plot point into the realms of suspending disbelief. As the main antagonist Sator (Kenneth Branagh) struggles too. An unweildy russian accent, snarling at the screen like a panto villain. ( Sean Connery famously played a russian submarine commander using his own accent and I was totally on board with it.) So really one of the weakest parts of the movie is the characterisation itself and the constant use of exposition to move the plot along. It doesn’t help that certain sections of dialogue are deliberatly obscured by the mix.

That’s not to say that the movie is terrible, its not. There is interest to be had. The scenes involving time going backwards are inventive and interesting if, at times, a little unclear. The locations are great with some nice production design and photography.

On a technical level it is brilliant especially the end where two squadrans of soldiers, one going forward and one going backwards in time occupy the same space.

So the question really is how far can you suspend your disbelief and hang on deciphering a complex plot? If you enjoy Nolan’s movies you will definitely want to see it. The question remains wheter you will ultimately see it as a wonderous failure or potential future classic. To me it is neither a complete failure nor a classic decidedly in the realms of just passable.

Point Break (1991) movie review

“An F.B.I. Agent goes undercover to catch a gang of surfers who may be bank robbers.”

— imdb

Fresh out of quantico recruit Johnny Utah (Keanu Reeves) ‘a blue flame special’ is partnered with seasoned FBI agent Pappas (Gary Busey) and tasked with cracking the case of the ex-presidents - A gung ho gang of bank robbers who have successfully evaded arrest and robbed Twenty-seven banks in three years. The ex-presidents are good at what they do. In and out within 90 seconds and leave no trace of themselves behind. Pappas has a theory - a crazy wild theory - that the ex-presidents are surfers. Together they investigate the surfer scene in the hopes that they can flush out the gang.

Opening on beautiful slow motion majestic surfing shots intercutting with hyper aggressive target range practice by Utah (Reeves) it perfectly encapsulates Point Break . A stylish action thriller which tries to capture moments of calm philosophy with explosive action. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow and written by W.Peter Iliff. At the time, Kathryn’s then husband James Cameron suggested that the final shooting screenplay was re-written by him and not Iliff (Iliff was paid a paltry $6,000 dollars to write the screenplay for Point Break) although Cameron is never given screenwriter credit he is on hands as executive producer.

Bigelow’s aggressive style holds the movie together in what many would consider a very standard plot. FBI agent infiltrates a gang and finds a kindred spirit that he both loathes and loves in equal measure.

Patrick Swayze as Bodhi is brilliant as the zen surfer cum criminal mastermind. The foil to Reeves straight laced ‘Blue flamer’. It’s clear that Reeves struggled at times in the acting stakes not nearly as commanding or astute as Swayze especially given some of the clunky lines that Swayze had to deliver - ‘It’s where you lose yourself and you find yourself’ - Referring to what riding waves is all about. Yet he makes it play, convincing you of his aura of a ‘messiah’ of the waves. It is a ‘bromance’ of hostile thrill seeking each not willing to back down from the other. Adrenaline junkies, with each high bigger than the last

Gary Busy is great as the wise and grizzled Pappas. Not that you’re coming to this movie for thespian-like acting. It’s all in the action and Bigelow delivers. It’s kinetic and fast paced, visually appealing stuff.

A particular highlight a foot chase midway through the film where Utah chases one of the ex-presidents through alleys, back gardens and houses in pursuit of ‘getting his man’. Bigelow and cinematographer Don Peterman films with long lenses in an anamorphic style that draws you in while still giving you a sense of location and depth.

Not that everything in the plot makes sense. It’s obvious from early on who the ex-presidents are yet it takes a long time to get to that reveal. Even then Utah goes on a sky diving ‘adventure’ with them. Indeed the movie is at its strongest when it focuses on the action. In that regard it’s a tour de force of excellent action direction. A brash and in your face aesthetic that are hallmarks of Bigelow’s style in the 90s.

Overall Point break is an excellent film and far better in every way than the subsequent remake in 2015 which substituted physical action for an unengaging CGI mess.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

BLUE STEEL 1990 MOVIE REVIEW

“A rookie in the police force must engage in a cat-and-mouse game with a pistol-wielding psychopath who becomes obsessed with her.”

— IMDB

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker, Point Break) and written in partnership between Bigelow and Eric Red(The Hitcher, Body Parts). Blue Steel is an action thriller from the 90’s echoing movies like The Hitcher, in particular, where a deranged psychopath takes a liking to an innocent and proceeds to make their life a misery by any means necessary.

Megan Turner (Jamie Lee Curtis) is a brash, rookie police officer, fresh out of the academy. On her first night on the job she witness a robbery in progress in a store. While her partner is taking a leak in the can she decides to tackle the robber. When the robber refuses to cooperate she guns him down, emptying six rounds into his chest sending him through a window pane onto the sidewalk. When the robbers .44 magnum goes missing, Megan is put on suspension for using unnecessary force. From here Megan’s problems escalate when her name is etched into 44. bullet casings used by ‘the 44. magnum killer’ on innocent victims..

Opening on extreme close ups of the cold steel of a weapon, Blue steel is a stylish thriller. Tinged with a cast of blue Bigelow paints each scene with shadows, highlights and smoke filled interiors. There is a gritty visceral feel to the action. Hyper real slow motion shots punctuated by effective sound design. It’s a precursor to the superior Point Break, a honing of Bigelows muscular style in the 90’s.

Megan is the lonely female surrounded by her male counterparts; a subtle sexism underpins the movie. She is continuously asked ‘What made you become a cop?’ insinuating that she isn’t best suited for the job because of her sex. Jamie Lee Curtis is excellent in the role, at times vulnerable and others brash.

The late great Ron Silver plays Eugene Hunt, a stockbroker cum .44 magnum killer. The stolen .44 caliber weapon becomes like a god to him. A twisted fetish, treating this cold hard steel like it is an extension of his person. At one point he accidentally ‘exposes’ it to an innocent man on the street. Possessed by the urge for gratification he guns him down in cold blood. Indeed his need for power and control would grow from there. Killing a prostitute bathing in her blood for pleasure. Seemingly a god, killing without reproach, untouchable by the law.

It’s a great turn by Silver. He is an intelligent psychopath playing a cat and mouse game with his prey. The cold blue steel of a weapon the twisted toy between them. Indeed the movie somewhat glorifies weapons. Filling the screen with glossy close ups; a fetish of hard steel.

The interaction between Eugene and Megan is the saviour of the movie, the other characters are stereotypes there to fill plot conventions. Not that the movie is perfect, it’s not. The biggest glaring mistake being the fact that a 44. Caliber weapon doesn’t eject shells yet they are found at every crime scene with Megan’s name on it. That in itself is quite a big gaff.

Arguably the first half of the movie is the most interesting with the slow descent of Eugene into madness. The second half becomes a little disjointed asking you to suspend disbelief a few too many times.

The inclusion of a sex scene 20 minutes from the end, at first seems odd but it descends into an effective albeit nasty power play between Megan and Eugene. Not only has Eugene to control her but he has to also take away her sexual power. It is a creepy and effective scene utilising sound effects in a very potent way. Eugene has completed his metamorphosis into a fully fledged monster. The only recourse for Megan is to give him what he most desires to die at her hands in a duel to the death.

In the end Blue Steel is far from perfect but it is for the most part entertaining. A quick moving gritty thriller from the 90’s.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

'The invisible man' movie review

“When Cecilia’s abusive ex takes his own life and leaves her his fortune, she suspects his death was a hoax. As a series of coincidences turn lethal, Cecilia works to prove that she is being hunted by someone nobody can see.”

— imdb

‘The invisible man’ is written and directed by Leigh Whannel who wrote the original Saw movies and is now firmly in the directors chair for this and his previous outing ‘Upgrade’. I initially caught a short ‘TV SPOT’ advertising the movie a while back and I really wasn’t drawn to it at all.

Thankfully the movie is a lot better than the TV SPOT for it. A twisted take on ‘Sleeping with the enemy’ it opens on Cecilia (Elizebeth Moss) as she tries to escape the clutches of her abusive husband. Silence playing a key role as she creeps around her husbands impressive mansion in her bare feet trying desperately to be quiet. It’s a creepy little scene and foreshadows what is to come after.

Cecilia is damaged by the relationship and slowly tries pick the pieces back up of her shattered psyche with the help of her friend and police officer James (Aldis Hodge). When Cecilia is notified that her Husband has taken his own life and she is entitled to five million dollar endowment from her late husbands estate she is invited to meet with Tom (Michael Dorman) her husbands estranged brother.

From here the movie is all about the slow deconstruction of Cecilia’s mind as she is seemingly haunted from the grave by her late husband. To say anymore would spoil the movie suffice to say that there are a handful of very effective scenes. My advice would be to see the movie without looking at any trailers.

Produced by Blumhouse pictures with an estimated 7 million budget its a mostly effective partially self contained movie. Not everything is perfect nor does it make perfect sense but when you are in the flow of the movie you don’t really pay too much attention.

It’s all about Elizabeth Moss’ performance as the fragile Cecilia. She makes her sympathetic and likeable. A trodden upon wife who happened to have the misfortune to hook up with a husband whose only desire was to control her completely. From her sense of dress to her hair style and everything else in between.

Even though the ending is telegraphed earlier than intended it is still enjoyable and a fitting conclusion to the movie. Overall worth a watch.

Bad Boys for life Movie Review

MD Movie review blog - Bad boys for life

“The Bad Boys Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett are back together for one last ride in the highly anticipated Bad Boys for Life.”

— imdb

The 80’s and 90’s were chock full of buddy cop movies, from Lethal weapon to Tango and Cash and every other flavour in between. Some we’re excellent (Lethal Weapon) while others just hopped on the popularity train for a quick buck.

It’s a seminal genre that gets rehashed every once in a while and occasionally comes up trumps. I remember very little of the original Bad Boys other than Michael bay directed it and it had a lot of low angle slow mo shots. Produced by Don Simpson and Gerry Bruckheimer who created a glossy action picture empire in the 80’s & 90’s with high concept stories, buddy comedy and multiple (Ghost) screenwriters.

Bad Boys for Life in a lot of ways is a throwback to a 90’s movie, trawling out action movie cliches such as Pepto Bismal chugging Captain screaming at his subordinate police officers or cops getting ‘too old for this shit’ and needing to retire. We’ve essentially seen it all before story wise. In this regard Bad boys for life offers very little in terms of ingenuity. Once again its drug lords against cops with retirement thrown into the mix and a pretty obvious ’twist’ that is telegraphed from about two minutes into the picture.

The movie relies almost exclusively on the chemistry between Lawrence and Smith. They have a likeable appeal, slipping easily into their personas like twenty years hasn’t passed. The only caveat being that Lawrence seems to have worn the mileage a little heavier than his counterpart Smith. It is noticeable that Lawrence doesn’t feature as much in the action stakes, taking a somewhat more leisurely approach favouring him to deliver one liners instead.

Occasionally the movie is a little flat unnecessarily doling out exposition and needless multiple phone calls essentially saying the same things over and over. The action scenes aren’t as crisp or interesting as the first movie, retreading the same territory but handled with less aplomb.

Not to say that the movie is bad it isn’t. There are moments of banter between Lawrence and Smith that are funny. It moves relatively fast and doesn’t overstay its welcome. But will it be considered a classic of the genre ten, twenty years from now? It’s unlikely. As a diversion for two hours you could probably do worse but don’t go in expecting anything more than that.

'the gentlemen’ movie review

The gentlemen - MD movie review blog

“A British drug lord tries to sell off his highly profitable empire to a dynasty of Oklahoma billionaires.”

— imdb

‘The Gentlemen’ is Guy Ritchie returning to his gangster roots again. A gentrified cousin to ‘Lock stock’ and ‘Snatch’ it features once again a motley crew of eccentric characters, double deals and a sleight of hand.

Opening with ‘Fletcher’ (played by Hugh Grant) a sleazy investigative journalist, who seizes an opportunity to try to blackmail Mickey Pearson (Matthew Mc Conaughey) for a cool twenty million regaling his ‘Fixer’ Ray (Charlie hunnam) about Mickey’s clandestine drug business which he intends to air publicly on the front page of a sleazy rag headed by the ruthless editor ‘Big Dave’ (Eddie Mardan).

Told in a slightly muddled flashback we follow Mickey and Ray as they try to negotiate an uneasy sale of their ‘weed business’ to ‘Matthew’ (Jeremy Strong) when a young gangster called ‘Dry eye’ (Henry Golding) interferes causing mayhem.

There are quite a few subplots to the movie. Initially when we open with Fletcher (Grant) telling us in unnecessarily Tarantino-esque dialogue about his master plan I thought I was going to be in for a very long viewing experience. Charlie Hunnam really didn’t inspire me with confidence either, his performance in these early scenes slightly wooden, unsure himself of what exact way to play his character. It is fortunate for the movie that he eventually settles into the role and gives a decent performance. Grant on the other hand plays his socks off, enjoying the chance to play a vile newsman especially timely considering his recent run-ins with newspaper publications.

The dialogue exchanges here giving the movie an unintentional 90’s feel copying Tarantino’s lilt without his timing or sense of style. McConaughey fairs better but it is an easy role for him, never stretching him in any way, he glides through the movie giving him a somewhat uninspired if enjoyable character. The same could be said for Michelle Dockery who gets the least to do and is only there to be used as a ‘female in jeopardy’ otherwise her character is forgettable and could have been played by anyone. Indeed it could be said that their relationship together gets somewhat sidelined and underserved.

Not to say that the movie is bad, it’s not. It’s an enjoyable caper if somewhat muddled at points. The eccentric side characters making far more interesting viewing no more so than Colin Farrell’s ‘Coach’ who teaches boxing to a rag tag of borderline degenerates. His scenes are entertaining and witty, played with his tongue firmly in his cheek.

It sometimes, however, gives the feeling that the whole movie is a little incoherent as the main plot of the story gets somewhat sidelined in favour of more interesting things. Jeremy Strong’s character ‘Matthew’ a case in point where he had potential to be an interesting villain, he gets relegated and diffused to the point where he doesn’t seem very important at all. This gives the ending a somewhat anticlimactic feel.

Overall ‘The Gentlemen’ is an enjoyable movie. It’s not perfect nor would I say it is better than ‘Snatch’. It’s different but the same. A slightly less chaotic Ritchie gone are most of the speed ramping effects which I’m thankful for. A slightly more sedate entry into his ‘mockney’ crime filmography but enjoyable nonetheless.

'Knives out' movie review

Knives out poster - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“A detective investigates the death of a patriarch of an eccentric, combative family.”

— IMDB

***WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD ***

Renowned novelist Harlon Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is found dead in his estate after his 85th birthday party. Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) a famous private detective is mysteriously hired to investigate the murder. Interviewing Thrombey’s kooky family one by one he is drawn into a whodunit where there are multiple suspects.

That last part is where I had the biggest problem with ‘Knives out’ - the ‘whodunit’ aspect - it’s pretty clear early on what happened in the ‘murder’. In fact the reveal is shown fairly early so you are essentially there to view how it all comes together. It’s whether you find this compelling or not will ultimately determine your enjoyment of the movie.

Marta (Ana de Armas) is a nurse who is taking care of Harlon, during one of their nightly routines Marta administers a mega dose of Morphine accidentally to Harlon. In her ensuing panic Harlon concocts a convoluted plan to try to save her from being a suspect. As a final act he slits his own throat before the morphine can take hold. Marta, now free from suspicion, is unwittingly roped into being Benoit Blanc’s sidekick as he investigates the murder. In the process she must try to hide herself as a suspect to protect her immigrant mother from deportation.

Ensemble pieces are notoriously difficult to get right ensuring every player gets his or her portion of run time. In this regard ‘Knives out’ fails. Personally, I felt a few of the players were criminally underused. Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson we’re given short shrift - never really considered suspects - only there to play out an infidelity side plot that really doesn’t go anywhere. Michael Shannon (Walt Thromby) Changes character on a whim to suit a plot device and make him seem more evil than he actually is. The other side characters we don’t really know or care about including the actual ‘real’ detectives investigating the murder itself.

As soon as Ransom (Chris Evens) appears on screen you know he is the murderer. Maybe it was the way he decided to play his character or perhaps the fact that the kooky grandmother whispers ‘Ransom you’re back again’ during the night of the murder was a bit of a giveaway. It is also pretty obvious that vials of morphine had been switched out from the get go. So it essentially becomes more about ‘why’ than ‘who’.

That is answered when we learn that Marta has been given all of Harlon’s fortune including the family estate. The family an unlikable bunch of self aggrandising misfits attuned to their own self importance. Wealth and prestige their undoing, they plot to have the will overturned by any means necessary.

At 2 hours 10 minutes Knives out is a little on the long side. Not really a ‘whodunit’ more a play on a Poirot mystery where the mystery part is somewhat jettisoned in favour of mildly entertaining romp with eccentric characters. Mention must be given to Danial Craig (Benuit Blanc) who uses an over the top southern accent that quickly becomes irritating to the point where it takes you out of the movie.

Since the movie is billed as a ‘whodunit’, I personally think it failed on that score. Plot contrivances used then forgotten: Dogs barking for only one person, noisy staircase, Granny with dementia, Marta’s ability to feel viscosity of morphine etc etc

Not that I hated the movie, I didn’t. It’s what I would term a Sunday afternoon picture: easily forgettable and just there to pass the time. It had potential to be interesting but in the end it was decidedly ‘Meh’.

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our reviews. Go on, you know you want to.

The Irishman movie review

The irishman - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“
A mob hitman recalls his possible involvement with the slaying of Jimmy Hoffa.
”

— Imdb

An understated and 'mature' Scorsese, gone are the crashing zooms of frenetic energy of youth in favour of control and precision mastering the best of both worlds savouring moments of character and humour, delivering a 'character study' of regret but not remorse echoing the phrase 'it is what it is'.

Its strength coming from the understated performances of DeNiro (Playing Frank Sheeran) and Pesci (Russel Bufalino) whose friendship spanning decades of quiet understanding and chilling understated menace. A simple almost wordless exchange meaning far more than anything that could be spoken. Pesci embodying a gentle underlying threat to his usual portrayal of manic sociopaths. It is a measured performance as is DeNiro’s who hasn't been better in a very long time. Neither performances are showy rather they ground themselves in melancholic strength underlying the truth that power isn't about who can scream the loudest.

Pacino plays Hoffa at his megalomaniac best, acting to his strengths as a brash overly confident control freak that never feels false. A pitch perfect performance that lends a frenetic energy counterpointing the control of DeNiro; a seemingly unlikely friendship that feels real and organic. A lunch time meeting between Hoffa and Provanzano (Stephen Graham) brilliant and darkly comedic, seething with underlying menace.

There are lots of little pockets of humour; Sheeran disposing of his revolver in his favourite spot in a river after a hit. It joining hundreds of others there he coolly states if they ever sent divers down there would be enough weapons found to ‘arm a small country’.

A cringe-worthy phone call between Sheeran (DeNiro) and Hoffa’s estranged wife perfectly encapsulates Sheeran’s Character: His awkwardness and apathy, struggling to communicate on any emotional level with her. He’s done a bad deed but he can’t be remorseful about it so he has to try to fake it.

Clocking in at around three and a half hours, there are patches where I felt the running time, particularly at the start. Perhaps that was due to certain de-aging scenes taking me out of the movie. Some were done really well and others just looked fake - in particular Pesci fares the worse of the two leads his digital make over leaping out at you to the point you’re paying more attention to his ‘digital face’ than what he’s actually saying. I couldn’t help but think what the movie could have been like in the 90s without digital interference and played for real.

Thankfully you settle into watching the movie, especially when Hoffa enters the fray. His manic energy a well needed boost to counterpoint the sedate even keel of Sheeran and Bufalino. When the trio do interact there is moments of magic highlighting why they are some of America’s greatest actors.

When all is said and done, ‘The Irishman’ is a great movie with a few slow patches but not enough to curb your enjoyment.

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

The Laundromat movie review

the laundromat - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“When her idyllic vacation takes an unthinkable turn, Ellen Martin begins investigating a fake insurance policy.”

— Imdb

The laundromat is a difficult movie to like. From the very opening scene we are introduced to Mossack and Fonsacca, the duo owners of the law firm 'mossack fonsaca' famously embroiled in the Panama papers. Wearing dinner suits and preening for the camera like pantomime puppets I had the sinking feeling that I wasn't going to like this movie very much.

Gary Oldman hamming it up a storm with an over exaggerated German accent that becomes irritating very quickly is counterparted with Antonio Baderas (who incidentally fares better in the acting stakes) to treat the audience like morons as they explain bartering and the invention of money.

In this, one of many irritating, pretentious scenes makes for difficult viewing. Utilising a similar technique by The big short where Mossack and Fonsaca are our narrators into a world of greed and corruption. Stephen Soderberg has chosen to make a semi comedic and semi serious movie that is scattershot and ultimately uningaging. The story of the Panama papers and Mossack Fonsaca deserved better. It treats them almost as afterthoughts, demeaning the impact and lessening the seriousness of greed and corruption.

In short vignettes sprawling across the globe, the central character played by Meryl Streep, fails to have an insurance claim honoured after her husband is horrifically drowned in a boating accident. She sets out to investigate realising to her horror that the insurance company doesn't exist and is only a Shell company with a Po box listed in Panama.

From here the movie goes all over the place undoubtedly trying to mirror the Panama papers where it appeared that tax avoidance was rampant across the globe facilitated by greedy lawyers and bankers who honour only the almighty dollar. We travel to Nevis, China, Panama, Nevada and even briefly Mexico in a failed attempt to insinuate that drug lords got in on the act as well.

It's this scattershot approach that makes the whole movie feel disposable as we don't really know any of the characters and the link between the stories are tenuous.

By the time the Panama papers are released the movie has warn thin. Like it's preening narrators with their sparkling dinner jackets and false demeanor it's all surface and no substance. Despite a final rally by Meryl Streep with an impassioned call to arms in a fight to change tax laws in any meaningful way, it feels strangely tacked on.

With noble intentions and a story that truly needs to be told maybe now more than ever with greed and corruption still at all time high, the laundromat unfortunately isn't that movie. It's a pale photocopy and what's worse is it dances around the subject, treating it lightly like it's narrators, all sparkle and no depth.

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

'Untouchable' Documentary review

untouchable - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“A look at the rise and fall of disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein featuring interviews with former colleagues and those who accused him of sexual misconduct.”

— imdb

Harvey Weinstein was on top of the world, a celebrated movie producer seemingly at the top of his game in the early 90s. An independent movie darling, willing to make movies others including studios wouldn’t touch. Under the Miramax banner they produced hit after hit , launching more than one movie stars and Directors career. But along with the glitz and glimmer of Hollywood there was a seedy underbelly of abuse and manipulation perpetuated by a sexual predator who wouldn’t take ‘No’ for an answer.

‘Untouchable’ recounts some of these cases, highlighting in detail the ordeals these women had to endure at the hands of ‘Weinstein’. It is difficult to hear, punctuated by pictures of Weinstein smiling for the camera, embracing these women like nothing had happened. The stories are harrowing and disgusting detailing coercion/bullying, assault and sexual assault.

Indeed at one point the Documentary shows the length Harvey went to to discredit these women hiring former a mossad-led agency called ‘Black Cube’ to target them. A low tactic to invalidate their stories with positive publicity shots showing their happiness with him. Air tight NDA agreements that painted them into a corner of complete silence. Coercion and bullying tactics. At the height of his ‘power’ it would take one phone call and that actress would never work again.

It is especially difficult when the industry itself is so cutthroat. To also deal with a megalomaniac who was so persistently predatory that saying no in itself was a difficult task. Even then saying no didn’t mean anything to Weinstein; another challenge to overcome, to conquer. Indeed it would seem, from his very skewed perspective, that these encounters we’re acceptable and condoned because it ‘happens all the time’ in the industry.

If that statement wasn’t shocking enough by itself it is the condoning of these actions by others in the industry who turned a blind eye that are truly abhorrent. Commerce taking precedent over humanity, decency and morality. In this regard it took Disney 12 years to part ways with Weinstein, taking his prized possession ‘Miramax’ in the deal in 2005. It is in this area that the documentary felt a little light, marginally highlighting those who we’re complicit in keeping this abuse quiet for so long while making boat loads of money in the process. Disney seemed to provide shelter for his actions, an unlimited check book and the power for him to be ‘untouchable’.

It is worth noting that only after Disney parted ways with Weinstein did any of these allegations get to see the light of day even then it wasn’t an easy task. Ronan Farrow breaking an explosive story in ‘The New Yorker in 2017 which included a recording of a ‘sting’ operation by New York police headed by Italian model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez where Weinstein is recorded in their second encounter - the first he allegedly touched her breasts - in this he is trying to coerce her to watch him take a shower in his hotel room.

What’s highlighted is the deep shame that these women felt that somehow they were complicit in these actions and the stigma of being branded a survivor and the ‘machine’ at work to keep them silent forever. It is worth noting that the use of an NDA to hide sexual assault is disturbing to say the least. That those in power can use this mechanism to keep abuse away from the public eye is staggering. In the end I can see a more comprehensive documentary being made on this subject which goes behind the scenes exposing the lies.

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Cobra (1986) movie review

‘Cobra’ poster, 1986 - movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“A tough-on-crime street cop must protect the only surviving witness to a strange murderous cult with far reaching plans.”

— imdb

In 1980s Sylvester Stallone was arguably the biggest star in Hollywood at the time. After a string of box office successes he appeared to have the Midas touch. Signed to originally star in the Beverly Hills cop movie, Stallone utilising a clause in his contract rewrote the screenplay making it more action orientated and changing the main character’s last name to Cobretti. Stallone would later leave the project after Paramount Pictures balked at the increase in budget from Stallone’s rewrite.

Based loosely upon Paula Gosling’s Novel ‘A running Duck’ Stallone wrote ‘Cobra’ about a nihilistic cop who will do anything to take down the bad guys. Directed by George P. Cosmatos, who collaborated with Stallone on ‘Rambo first blood part two’. It is worth noting here that it is rumoured that Stallone ghost directed ‘Cobra’ and ‘Rambo first blood part two’. It would later emerge that ‘Cosmatos’ next picture ‘Tombstone’ was ghost directed by Kurt Russel. Cosmatos being known as a guy who could be used for these services Kurt Russel would later say (about Tombstone) ‘I’d go to George’s room, give him the shot list for the next day, that was the deal. While you’re alive George, I won’t say a goddamn thing.’

‘Cobra’ was green lit with a budget of twenty five million dollars. Produced by Golan and Globus who in the 80s and 90s would shoot out lots of low budget B-movies with varying degrees of success.

Cobra setting is a seedy nihilistic Los Angeles where a ‘new world order’ biker gang is terrorising the general public. The ‘night slasher’, a sadistic serial killer trawls the streets in search of his next quarry. When we join the movie he is about to murder his sixteenth victim, mutilating her body using a razor sharp knife. Cue ‘Cobra’ a tough detective heading the ‘Zombie squad’, an extreme splinter group of the LAPD who shoot first and ask questions later, is tasked with finding and eliminating the ‘night slasher’.

When Ingrid played by Brigitte Nielsen is brutally attacked on her way home from a fashion shoot she comes under the protective watch of ‘Cobra’. That is essentially the movie plot wise.

Viewed now over thirty years later, Cobra is extremely dated. Filled with cheesy one-liners and choppy editing. It is, however, fast paced coming in at a lean 87 minutes. There is a great performance by Brian Thompson who plays the ‘night slasher’. He is a sadistic and menacing presence. The attack on ‘Ingrid’ in an LA hospital a particular highlight.

The original cut of the movie was rumored to be two hours ten minutes long featuring lots of bloody violence. Cut down to a more reasonable 90 minutes and the MPAA insisted that more cuts happen to secure a coveted ‘R’ rating and not the proposed ‘X’ rating. It is definitely a movie that suffers badly from being overly edited. Scenes are haphazardly put together with a lot of sudden cuts when anything violent appears on screen. Continuity errors are frequent and puzzling. Coherency sabotaged for run-time and the misguided belief that being an hour and a half will ensure more cinema viewings.

Some of the action scenes were interesting but again they suffer from poor editing decisions, haphazardly chopping away at any potential coherency and tension. Which is a shame as it could have been another type of ‘Mad max’. You can easily see that movie as being an inspiration for the finale and the subsequent biker gang chase.

In the end it becomes rinse and repeat with biker gangs dying theatrical deaths in very similar ways. ‘Cobra’ using his ‘Jeti-Mati’ automatic weapon slicing down one gang member after the next. I would argue that a cut with more of the violence intact would have made for a better viewing experience. As it stands the movie is part slasher movie part action movie with a tiny bit of romance tacked on to it.

Stallone for the most part revels in this persona delivering a cool, cold performance. It is clearly his movie, front and centre like Dirty Harry. Every other character is thrown into the background, which given some of the poor dialogue isn’t necessarily a bad idea. It’s a shame Warner Brothers didn’t accept the b-Grade aesthetics and embrace more of the violent, sleazy elements.

Still, for a movie which garnered six Razzie awards it did quite well taking in an estimated $160 million at the box office. For a while a sequel was planned but this was abandoned. Stallone recently hinted at a reemergence so maybe an older ‘Cobra’ may eventually hits the screens in future.

Be social Follow us!

We need to talk about Kevin movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“
Kevin’s mother struggles to love her strange child, despite the increasingly dangerous things he says and does as he grows up. But Kevin is just getting started, and his final act will be beyond anything anyone imagined.”

— Imdb

We need to talk about Kevin is a strange movie. At times engaging, effective and dramatic and others drifting aimlessly almost dream-like in structure. How far you are willing to suspend your disbelief will ultimately determine what you get out of the movie. There was a poignant, moving story to be told which is only partially delivered.

Directed by Lynne Ramsey (you were never really here) in a split time narrative, choosing to dole out what in real terms is a very straight forward simplistic plot line in bite sized chunks spanning 18 years. This fractured timeline hops into random slots of time deliberately trying to add weight to the story. This approach doesn't always work, favouring lingering looks into the drawn face of Eva (Tilda Swinton), a (apparently) famous travel writer and stressed mother of Kevin who really didn't want him in the first place. His presence a burden to her life, she tries desperately to cling to the past refusing to properly engage with her infant. Brilliantly illustrated by the scene where Eva walks to a construction site to try to mask her son's incessant crying with Jack hammers and drilling.

She senses, as does the audience, that there is something very wrong with Kevin. Only when he gets older do we realise by how much. It’s obvious that Kevin is intelligent, manipulative even. A willful little child who deliberately refuses potty training insisting on nappies until he is nearly six or seven (It is never expressly said in the movie). Understandably this would ware on any parent. Eva cracks and throws her child against a wall, breaking his arm. At this point you could easily start to disbelieve that any parent would allow a child to manipulate them in this way without seeking help from professional services.

There is a sense sometimes of the movie being more style over substance. The deliberate use of red and yellow. There is barely a scene in the movie that doesn’t feature either colour prominently or as a feature within the frame. Some instances are very in your face. when Eva - in the present time before the incident - is shopping and she sees a parent that she doesn’t want to see her she scurries around an aisle standing fearful in front of endless rows of red labelled Campbell soup. It is a mechanism to suggest death and foreboding of things to come. Indeed the opening sequence features Eva surrounded by a sea of red, writhing bodies while on one of her ‘adventures’.

It is a little bit of subterfuge as there is scant meat on the bones, only scratching at the surface implying lots but saying very little. There was plenty of opportunities to delve into the mindset of Eva or Kevin but we only get surface details. Indeed it is perhaps missing a scene that the title suggests ‘we need to talk about Kevin’ which never happens not even between Eva and her feckless Husband Franklin (John C Reilly). The surrounding characters are there just to fill a scene or react to Eva’s machinations about Kevin.

In this regard the reactions of both parents are reckless and misjudged. No more fitting than when Kevin buys twenty bike locks ‘online’. Not once did they question it. Not even the cynical Eva. Which plays absurdly unrealistic given what had occurred previously - her second child losses an eye and the hamster squeezed into a trash compacter at the hands of Kevin. As played in the movie, Eva is a very hard character to be sympathetic to even though she is a tragic character; the steely androgenic gaze off putting and stern. Her actions personifying that not all people should be parents.

When the final tragic incident occurs it is shown off-screen - indeed the director has opted to not show any violence onscreen - I would argue that the scene would have been more powerful had we witnessed this in greater detail as it stands it is shown in muted flashback as Kevin draws his arrows to fire.

While an interesting subject matter, ultimately the movie is more concerned in delivering pretentious notions than hard hitting drama. It could have been a sucker punch to the gut. In the end it only slightly delivers on that score.

*** out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Ad Astra movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“
Astronaut Roy McBride undertakes a mission across an unforgiving solar system to uncover the truth about his missing father and his doomed expedition that now, 30 years later, threatens the universe.”

— Imdb

Where do I begin with reviewing the movie Ad Astra? In terms of plot it is quite simplistic. Roy Mc Bride (Brad Pitt), a troubled yet stern Astronaut must embark on a mission to find his father, who thirty years previously, set out into space to find other sources of life on distant planets. The ‘Lima Project’, a top secret mission pioneered by H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones), the golden boy of the space programme, long thought to be dead until mysterious energy fields begin destroying life on earth.

It’s an interesting premise hampered somewhat by unnecessary ‘on point’ voice over, messy plot contrivances and an unconvincing world. Undoubtedly the core underlying meaning of the movie is about the damaged son chasing after the neglectful father in the hopes that they can reunite after thirty years of absence, to seek answers from him to why he chose to abandon him. In this you also see that the son is doomed to repeat the mistakes of his father if he continues down this road. The other being the chase for something better ‘out there’ and in the process taking everything for granted including our loved ones at the cost of our humanity. It is a nice sentiment and one the world definitely needs right now.

But it is hidden within a messy plot where you never really get on board with what’s happening on screen or fully grasp the world created. It’s intentionally sterile to the point where it literally sucks the tension out of the movie. There was potential for the movie to be exciting and engaging as well as tell a meaningful story. But it misses the mark. Personally, I felt the voice over for the most part didn’t work. It was very on point telling you, the audience, what exactly was happening on screen. In one instance Brad Pitt actually says ‘I’m on my way to Jupiter’ just in case you missed that plot point. Not that Brad Pitt is bad in it, far from it, he is excellent. A really understated performance. But he is really the only character that stands out, the supporting cast is completely secondary coming across as one dimensional ciphers just so Pitt has ‘something’ to react to.

The other niggling aspect was some of Brad Pitts dialogue which hammered home, quite literally, how the character was feeling telling us at one point, travelling for 80 plus days to reach Jupiter ‘I’m so alone’ - just in case the subtext was lost on the viewer his chosen hermetic workaholic lifestyle has created a ‘loner’ separating himself from his loved ones - it is reinforced with flashbacks to him and his wife drifting apart. I would argue the audience would have gotten that idea without the inclusion of this clunky dialogue.

One of the aspects I found interesting was the trip to the moon and the fact that there is a ‘war’ raging on it where Pirates are ravaging resources for their own personal gain. This is never really explored at all which is a shame as it was one of the more fascinating ideas in the movie. Not to say that it fits into the story. It doesn’t. Sticking out like most of the action scenes. Perhaps studio interference responsible to try to punch up the story.

It is probably worth mentioning about the messy/implausible physics displayed in most of the movie. I could get on board with most of it bar three glaringly bad scenes: 1. The race to catch a rocket to Jupiter where Brad Pitt with ten seconds to launch manages to climb onto the rocket and somehow hold on as the rocket is propelled at 18,000 miles per hour climbing into a hatch at the base of the rocket. 2. Brad Pitt ‘surfing’ on a piece of metal trying to get back to his rocket near the end of the movie blasting through a debris field of rocks without being thrown off trajectory in the slightest. 3. Stopping for SOS call in space. Again the rocket was traveling at a tremendous speed so stopping without any reference on a whim seems very unrealistic. It’s worth pointing out that the rockets seemed like they we’re from our time and not in any way modernised/updated.

It is these implausible plot points that really let the movie down such as Tommy Lee Jones who is a very fine actor but I could never, not for one instant, believe he would be capable of surviving space flight - he looked old in his thirties never mind now in his seventies. Not withstanding that the movie is in long stretches actually quite boring. There was potential there but it is sterile, working in service of pretentious notions in love with the idea of meaning, to the detriment of story, character and an engaging plot.

Overall it was disappointing, I really wanted to like the movie and I could see the potential in it but it fell short.

** & 1/2 out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Hustlers movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“Inspired by the viral New York Magazine article, Hustlers follows a crew of savvy former strip club employees who band together to turn the tables on their Wall Street clients.”

— imdb

Inspired by real life events of a group of strippers who during the crash embark on a spree of mass drugging and larceny of their male clients. Constance Wu plays ‘Destiny’ a down on her luck girl who must work endlessly to pay her bills and look after her grandmother. When Ramona played by Jennifer Lopez takes her under her wing they concoct a scheme to rob sleazy bankers of money. In a nut shell that’s the entire movie. It is primarily set in the sordid confines of a strip club called ‘Moves’ where every male character, bar one perhaps (maybe, at a stretch), are depicted as degenerate scumbags ripe for manipulation by these female ‘hustlers’ who despite working hard are treated abysmally by the system. But that doesn’t entirely ring true.

Framed as a type of female ‘Robin hood’ stealing from the rich, ‘Hustlers’ is an odd choice for critics to tout as empowering to women. With Robin hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor you at least got the sense that his actions where for the benefit of all which showed a moral compass of sorts. In this the ladies are hardly morally right desperately playing out one con after the next to feed a need for material wealth.

The movie has a very rinse and repeat formula. Once you’ve seen one ‘hustle’ you’ve seen them all. Despite some nice photography there is a sense of over glamorising something that isn’t all that glamorous. It’s gritty and dirty, a chance to be a voyeur in the detritus. Adding a touch of ‘Goodfellas’ copying to the mix that feels a slight reach too far.

Constance Wu’s acting was a little weak especially the start of the movie. She just didn’t seem comfortable in the role as stripper. The fast cut editing and sloppy dialogue did her no favours either.

In the simplest terms It’s a female friendship movie that we have seen countless times before wrapped loosely in a heist aesthetic. To say its complex isn’t accurate, I would say the characters are very one dimensional. We never really get to know Ramona. Destiny played by Wu fairs a little better but it’s still all surface. We have a climax that feels somewhat anticlimactic. It was missing that bite that it very much needed. An ending that warranted the the two hour run time. But we don’t get that, the movie drips to a lazy conclusion. In the end I was confused about what movie critics actually watched. It seems like they we’re more interested in progressing some political agenda than actually critiquing the movie. The same could be said about the filmmakers themselves. Which is a shame as story and character should be king.

The hustlers are depicted as glamorous almost enticing, something you should aspire to and never really treated in a negative light. There are shades of grey but these are mostly discarded in favour of a view of positivity and supposed female power. At the end of the day they we’re con artists and thieves definitely no better than the bankers they stole from yet the filmmakers want you to love them - their actions were abhorrent; perhaps even willing to kill for one more chance to make it rain under the guise of feminism and revenge. This revelation is treated so lightly for fear you may actually start to hate these women. It would have been far braver of the filmmakers to cast them in a negative light then you would have had balance. As it stands there is no balance, instead they are shown positively. Two wrongs apparently make a right in this skewed version of the world. ‘Man hating’ in vogue now as the new form of feminism.

In the end there was no tension each ‘con’ the same as the last - treated lightly in montage for fear the audience may ask moralistic questions of the protagonists. They did a bad deed, were caught: the end. What could have been tension driven ended flat and disjointed.

When all is said and done ‘Hustlers’ isn’t a good movie.

** out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Midsommar movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“A couple travels to Sweden to visit a rural hometown’s fabled mid-summer festival. What begins as an idyllic retreat quickly devolves into an increasingly violent and bizarre competition at the hands of a pagan cult.”

— imdb

Midsommer is the follow up feature film from writer/director Ari Astor who directed the chilling ‘Hereditory’ last year. Dani (Florence Pugh in a brilliant performance) is a troubled young women, trapped into a cycle of mental abuse by her sister with Bipolar who constantly threatens to end her life via e-mail and text message.

When she actually follows through with her latest threat, taking Dani’s parents along with her in a shocking scene, Dani’s world threatens to fall apart. Relying on an unsympathetic boyfriend Christian played astutely by Jack Reynor, who secretly really just wants to dump her but doesn’t have the heart to do so, to help put her back together. Dani invites herself onto a trip to Sweden that Christian didn’t tell her about to visit a remote village for a few weeks of relaxation and to take her mind off of her woes.

Shot in a very bright and distancing fashion, it Cooley contrasts the vibrant photography to create a quietly unsettling tone. Echoing movies like ‘The wicker man’ we are dropped into a remote cult whose practices are weird and distorted. For a while we are visitors casually witnessing a gradual deception take place. This slow pace could easily polarize viewers. I would say if you prefer your movie going experience to be constantly in your face then this movie isn’t for you. If, however you prefer a slow burn there are weirdly enjoyable moments to be had. The fact that there are genuine scenes of macabre laughter along the way helps a great deal.

Not scary in the slightest, ‘Midsommar’ prefers to play out in a vibrantly unsettling manner. Utilizing a bright summer colour palette of greens and yellows glossing over the darkness hidden within. Its a clever conceit which does hold your attention. I did however feel that most of the characters where disposable, reacting somewhat unrealistically when some of their fellow travel companions begin to disappear. The explanations given by the elder inhabitants are at best suspicious. But maybe that is the point of their characters: selfishness. Certainly I would agree when it comes to the character of Christian who is somewhat self centred and a little devious. The other disappointing aspect is the plot which follows a very predicable line. It left a little feeling of ‘its very pretty to look at but where are the surprises in the plot?’.

Near the end a scene involving a coerced sexual ritual is played for weirdness and laughter. It is a darkly comical scene that had the audience in my screening in fits of laughter. It could have so easily fallen apart but Jack Reynor plays it perfectly, his facial expressions comic gold. I must admit I wasn’t expecting the movie to have any humour in it but I’m happy to say it did.

In the end ‘Midsommar’ isn’t perfect but it is enjoyable. Not for everyone like his previous movie ‘Hereditory’. There are some unexplained details that might confuse some. Taken as a whole it was a little on the long side. If you find slow burn movies a slog then you wont find this movie any different. However, if you enjoy weird goings on with a touch of ‘The wicker man’ then you might enjoy this. I would, however, say don’t expect it to break the mold and necessarily add anything new to that movie trope.

***1/2 out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

'The silence' movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“When the world is under attack from terrifying creatures who hunt their human prey by sound, 16-year old Ally Andrews (Kiernan Shipka), who lost her hearing at 13, and her family seek refuge in a remote haven.”

— imdb

Recently netflix have been doing more and more original content. With varying degrees of success, some better than others but all, at least, with an emphasis on content that you wouldn’t see a major movie studio investing money, especially not in this climate of comic book movie overkill. Its a least refreshing to see a studio investing in other material that isn’t cartoony comic book superhero extravaganza. An adult orientated adventure where there could be genuine stakes and not a falseness primed on the possibility of a ‘reboot’ if they don’t hit the ‘right demographic’.

In truth, their brave decisions don’t always work out. And this is the case with ‘The Silence’. An intriguing premise that actually pre-dates the far superior ‘A quiet place’. Some have said that netflix have copied a format that worked when in reality they were working from a book by Tim Lebbon called ‘the silence’ Released in 2015. So it begs the question of who was copying who here. The setup almost identical even down to a girl who is deaf and a family in jeopardy from blind creatures that hunt by hearing alone.

Without trying to spoil anything I will say that there are some effective scenes namely one where a car is parked on a side road. But the main problem here seems to be the fact that Director John R. Leonetti hasn’t embraced the material. A potential for scares and tension that ‘ A quiet place’ mastered. It didn’t help that the creatures in ‘The silence’ where a type of hybrid bat that wasn’t set up in a frightening way. They seemed far too simple to kill. Setting aside the obvious plot holes or the fact that we didn’t really get to know the main protagonists aside from their limited family dynamic, the plot just didn’t really engage.

The start had potential and they could have gone in a number of different directions (I haven’t read the book so I can’t say whether this closely mirrors the plot of the source material) instead taking it down a tired path that held very little tension. With, at times, some very shoddy CGI creatures and potential setup that didn’t result in a satisfying conclusion we have a feature film that has potential but falls flat and lifeless.

The ending where they meet a group of religious fanatics, again had potential but how that concludes was just as unsatisfying and worst still irritating because it just.. well ends on a weird abrupt note. Three or so minutes later and we have an epilogue that feels rushed and out of place. Either they ran out of money or the screenwriter had sequel squarely in his mind. Either way potential ruined. There could have been hints of ‘The road’, a harsh climate where having a family is dangerous in itself.

But that isn’t the case we are instead delivered a type of B movie with quite large plot holes. Not that ‘A quiet place’ didn’t have plot holes either, it did. There was just enough ingenuity and tension to suspend your disbelief so you could get on board with the story. It also help immensely that you actually got to know the family in the movie. In this, the criminally under utilised Stanley Tucci is hand cuffed into a nothing role where he is given very little bar a few minor scenes to play with.

In the end ‘The Silence’ is a pale photocopy of ‘A quiet place’ where the original stands head and shoulders above it in execution. Which is a shame really as the story had potential.

** out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Creed 2 movie review

“Under the tutelage of Rocky Balboa, heavyweight contender Adonis Creed faces off against Viktor Drago, son of Ivan Drago.”

— imdb

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

Having grown up watching Rocky movies from a very young age I looked forward to the new incarnation of the series through the brash and often times obstinate Adonis Creed, son to the famous boxer Apollo Creed. Very much the product of his father, a son who wishes to be nothing like him yet echoes every move in a vicious circle, doomed to repeat the same mistakes of his father.

Under the wise tutelage of Rocky, Creed now champion will face off against an old adversary in the form of Victor Drago, a man mountain who is very much the carbon copy of his father Ivan Drago.

We open on a disgraced Ivan Drago, who has no country, respect or honour pushing his son to the limits of endurance in the hopes that he will regain their life back and the finery that this implies. When Victor beats an opponent quickly in an underground boxing match he falls into the watchful gaze of sleazy boxing promotor Buddy Marcelle played by Russell Hornsby. This sets Victor on a collision course with Adonis Creed for the title belt and revenge.

‘Creed 2’ follows a very similar path to ‘Creed’ once again it is about growing up in the shadow of a famous father and wanting to avenge his father’s death. Creed has seen really very little growth since the first movie, retreading old ground and his story arc suffers for it. Rocky as a character is pushed further into the background - he is now the wisened old boxer giving life lessons to his protege even though he refuses to listen.

To me the most interesting story line was Ivan Drago’s who has fallen on hard times as result of his loss to Rocky Balboa many years before. Once his name was synonymous with power and prestige but now he is outcast, dishevelled and bitter forcing his son to walk in his fathers footsteps to regain what was lost and in the process rebuild both their lives. It is a far more interesting dynamic and a story I was more interesting in seeing.

That’s not to say that Adonis’ story isn’t engaging, it is, I just felt it replayed the same hits again as the first movie. As a result the movie wasn’t quite strong enough in that area. The secondary players were given very little to work with this time, Bianca played by Tessa Thompson is somewhat relegated to a bit part player who only appears when a musical interlude is required.

Usually one of the best parts of a Rocky movie is the training montage set to a blistering soundtrack they make you root for the main character and engage in an emotional sense as he overcomes adversity to rise to the top. With Creed 2 the training montage felt a little flat and subdued. It wasn’t quite as engaging as previous montages before it.

When the boxing match plays out between Drago and Creed it is suitably bombastic, filmed nicely and echoes the previous Rocky movies for intensity. The ending is a passing of the torch, where Rocky will slink into the shadows allowing Creed to tell his own story anew. Detailing clearly where the franchise is heading. Sylvester Stallone announced he is no longer playing the Rocky Character going forward. Creed will be left to his own devices but the question is whether Adonis Creed is an interesting enough character to hold an entire movie together on his own.

Overall the movie is enjoyable despite repeating itself then again I guess you don’t go into a Rocky or Creed movie expecting any different do you?

***1/2 out of 5

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

'WIDOWS' MOVIE REVIEW

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“Set in contemporary Chicago, amidst a time of turmoil, four women with nothing in common except a debt left behind by their dead husbands’ criminal activities, take fate into their own hands, and conspire to forge a future on their own terms.”

— imdb synopsis

I’ve been a fan of Steve Mc Queen’s movies since his debut feature film ‘Hunger’, a haunting vision of Irish republican hunger striker Bobby Sands. His movies are quietly powerful with assured, confident direction and emotional performances from his central leads.

With his latest movie ‘Widows’ we are drawn into the seedy world of Robbers and a political landscape that embraces this lifestyle secretly while openly admonishing it. We open onto a botched robbery where Harry Rawlings (Liam Neeson) a career criminal with over thirty successful years of armed robbery under his belt seemingly makes a mistake in the planning and all of the robbers are executed at the hands of a zealous swat team who decimate the group in a hail of bullets.

With a debt owed to a nefarious criminal Jamal Mannings (Brian Tyree Henry) - who also happens to be running against Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell) for alderman of the 19th ward, four ‘Widows’ must conspire to forge a future on their own terms and take on a heist that will free themselves from debt and perhaps a new life free from crime.

Taken as a remake of sorts to the 1983 series by Lynda La Plant, there is a lot of story strands that have to be hit in a two hour movie. You would think that this would keep the story interesting and fresh but in reality I felt it dragged at times and we lost the central premise of four women attempting to carry off a robbery with no experience. The other scenes involving political machinations felt forced even though there are some great turns by Colin Farrell and his brow beating, overbearing father played by Robert Duval. Daniel Kaluuya’s performance felt a little off neither over the top evil or clever… just well a little generic. The same could be said for Liam Neeson’s character Harry Rawlings - we never really get to know any of them. They are stock one dimensional characters. In truth there is just too many characters to juggle and have any of them feel grounded.

The subplot of Viola Davis losing her son through a police shooting lost some of its power as it wasn’t really at the centre of the movie. It is the motivator for the plot of the movie which for obvious spoiler reasons I wont say anything more suffice to say that I felt it needed to be given more weight and not have it be a precursor to a ‘twist’ that didn’t necessarily work effectively enough.

In truth the plot by screenwriter Gillian Flynn felt muddled with too many characters vying for screen time that they lost their impact. The central premise for the movie involving the four women was less impactful and relegated to snippets where you lost their character. Truly the only real character was Veronica played by Viola Davis. Trying to touch on so many themes all at once made for a disjointed viewing. We have sleazy politics, sex work, Racism, loss, remorse, revenge, regret and hope all intertwined so that very little hits home and you lose a lot of the power in those themes even though they are very relevant in today’s society.

This is not to say the movie is bad its not. It has very assured direction and the performances are all very good. I felt perhaps that one less subplot would have made for a better viewing experience and given the central premise more weight.

Overall worth watching ***1/2 out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Hereditary movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“After the family matriarch passes away, a grieving family is haunted by tragic and disturbing occurrences, and begin to unravel dark secrets.”

— imdb

**Warning there will be spoilers**

From the very first opening minute there is a creepy atmosphere to the psychological horror 'Hereditary'. We are introduced to Annie played with great conviction by Toni Collette who is just about to bury her mother. We get the distinct feeling that Annie didn't particularly see eye to eye with her and is struggling to grieve for her loss.

Through the course of this we get introduced to her slightly strained family. With her put upon husband Steve (Gabriel Byrne) and her estranged son Peter (Alex Wolff) and Strange daughter Charlie (The underutilised Milly Shapiro). The creepy connotations build slowly - this movie is definitely a slow burn so if you like your horror fast paced it might not be for you - where we witness Annie creating life like miniature dioramas replete with tiny people and furniture. A production design that is used again and again in both setting and cinematography. At times it appears the characters are living in a real life doll house and we are viewing them first hand. Its a clever and weird device.

The movie is quite atmospheric and tension slowly builds. At first you aren't sure where the movie is going, building up the supernatural elements slowly. Only when Charlie is horrifically decapitated by her brother Peter by accident - a scene that's brilliantly handled - does the movie show any real momentum. From here there is some terrific scenes with Annie as her downward spiral where it is heavily implied that she had a breakdown of some sort and has never quite recovered all of her mental capacity. In one shocking revelation she admits to her son Peter that she never wanted him as a child in fact she tried to abort him on numerous occasions but failed primarily because her overbearing mother wanted him and not her herself.

As tensions rise and the family unit deteriorates old secrets rise to the surface and home truths that are pushed from the surface come back to haunt you and that trust that was once there suddenly evaporates and you can never really get it back. To say any more would spoil the movie.

I would say that Hereditory is two thirds of a great movie with the final third the least satisfying. When you learn the 'truth' of why the supernatural occurrences are happening it deteriorates ever so slightly into parody. Not to say that its bad, its not it just didn't have the same level of tension and the final reveal is a little bit on the silly side which might raise a few titters more than shock.

But still there is much to be enjoyed about Hereditary if, of course, you enjoy slow burning psychological horror. From a purely performance stand point Toni Collette is terrific and gives a powerful performance. All in all I quite enjoyed 'Hereditary' while not perfect it is worth watching.

**** out of *****  

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.

Mission Impossible: Fallout review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“Ethan Hunt and his IMF team, along with some familiar allies, race against time after a mission gone wrong.”

— imdb

***SPOILERS AHEAD ***

Opening with a familiar setup that is now a firm part of the mission impossible structure, Ethan Hunt must try to rescue stolen plutonium from an arms dealer hell bent on selling it on to a militant splinter group which has parted ways with 'the syndicate'. The mission goes wrong and Ethan Hunt must try to recover the stolen plutonium, risking the lives of his IMF crew and his ex wife.

Filled with spectacular action from the word go it is a roller coaster ride of thrills and action. Darker in tone and cinematography than the previous instalments it relies on the central premise that Ethan Hunt would happily sacrifice the world to save a person close to him. With this firmly in place Filmmaker Christopher McQuarrie sets up obstacle after obstacle with this very purpose in mind.

Its a clever premise but ironically I found the writing to be the weakest part of the storytelling. At times the plot is sacrificed in pursuit of an action sequence. Then again why are we watching these movies if not for the action and the spectacle? When the action beats rise and are handled with such fervour the plot becomes secondary anyway so maybe its best not to complain too much. But I personally felt that there was something missing. With all the explosive bravura on display do we really care about any of the characters and is that even necessary anymore?

But I digress, having the longest run time of all of the mission movies I did feel it went on a little to long. No to say that it was boring. No it was never boring. It just lacked a little pizzazz when they slow down enough to have a conversation with each other. But this is a very minor complaint. All in all the setup is interesting enough to pull you along for the ride.

At first I found Henry Cavill's character August Walker a nice introduction, he is introduced as the 'tip of the spear' someone who will get the job done no matter the cost - but as the movie went on he became a less interesting character and ultimately villain. The finale where two helicopters hang precariously over a cliff edge does echo a movie like 'Cliffhanger' where the hero and villain battle inside as the helicopter slips further and further down to the rocky depths below. Then again you are always going to have comparisons to other movies and it is still an enjoyable action sequence nevertheless.

I will, however, urge you not to look at the trailer. I felt that it gives away the twist in the movie. But having said that the twist is pretty obvious from the get go so maybe that doesn't matter too much. The marketing is selling the movie based upon the action quota and very little about the plot as they clearly paint Henry Cavill as the villain in them. 

All in all Mission impossible: Fallout is an enjoyable movie best viewed in a cinema with the largest screen to fully appreciate the scale of the action.

**** out of **** 

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.