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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

Death wish 3 movie review

movie review blog - death wish 3

“Architect/vigilante Paul Kersey arrives back in New York City and is forcibly recruited by a crooked police chief to fight street crime caused by a large gang terrorizing the neighborhoods.”

— imdb

For the last little while I've been taking a trip back down 80s nostalgia filmwise watching a few classics and not so classics and ones that are so bad they're almost entertaining. Almost. I think death wish 3 falls into this category.

As with the other death wish movies Charles Bronson plays Paul Kersey architect cum vigilante who says very little and let's his gun do the talking for him.

Kersey comes to town to visit an old buddy but low and behold there is a gang who controls the streets and promptly does away with kersey's buddy just before he arrives. Less than two seconds later (literally) he is arrested by a detective 'dude' ( we never get to know his name as far as I remember ) and despatched to jail for his friends murder. Huh? With that type of service the cops would have the streets cleaned up in no time. But I digress. After being jailed and having an impromptu fight with a gang member in the jail cell where he pushes his head through the jail cell bars, he is set loose by detective 'dude' to do his vigilante thing.

Cue kersey's revenge Replete with bazookas through the mail and a Hand cannon dirty Harry would be proud of. In fact they make a joke about that one. The film is a funny mix of dark material and tongue in cheek action. Bronson was reportedly not impressed with the movie at the time and vowed never to work with the director again.

But the question remains is this movie any good? Even as I type this I can't quite decide whether it's nostalgia or plain lunacy but in a twisted way the movie is strangely entertaining. Now I'm not saying its good, it's not its really bad, but it's entertaining as in entertaining to see how badly constructed it is and how much the film maker doesn't seem to care. They seemingly make no effort to mask it. It's like saying 'in for a penny in for a pound'. 

Right on!

The film is funny in a not intentional way. The scenes are played completely serious and earnest which makes it that much more fun. The acting is really bad at times but it moves quickly, shifting from one stilted 'acting' scene to the next eager to get to the action which is the real heart of the movie anyway. These small filler scenes seem to be there just to fill a cinematic convention that there must be a 'story' to break the action. I may be wrong but I think this is the least amount of dialogue that Charles Bronson speaks in any movie. It's somehow awkward when he does, however, so maybe that was a wise choice.

There are lots of moments of nihilistic action. It's completely over the top. The traps that kersey uses to lure the gang members out so that he can gun them down mercilessly are unintentionally hilarious. He buys a new car (wtf?), gang member tries to rob it, one badly scripted and stilted dialogue exchange and the gang members are blown away. Kersey goes back to his dinner. Kersey goes to buy ice cream with a brand new camera only to be robbed by 'the Giggler' (seriously!) a gang member with a permanent laughing disorder. Mr giggles eats pavement with a big hole in his chest. The whole neighbourhood celebrates. The gang members stew crying awkward crocodile tears 'they killed the Giggler!'.

The Giggler in action

A women we have only briefly met for one or two short scenes is brutally attacked by some gang members and ends up in hospital. The ending to this is a phone call to say that this unfortunate women has suffered a broken arm and will be fine. Cut to: visiting her in the hospital and kersey is informed by the medical team that she has 'expired'. Huh? A moment ago she had a broken arm? Yes, but apparently there was a complication with trying to fix her arm and she died. Don't cut your finger in this town you might just keel over and die from 'complications'. It's a device if one was needed for full on revenge and carnage on the streets.

Gatling gun carnage

The final twenty minutes or so is summed up simply by stating that kersey becomes a one man army, taking on an endless supply of gang members who die theatrical deaths at the business end of a gatling gun. The perpetrators die doing somersaults through the air that Spider-Man would be proud of. No one just simply dies. Its even more comic book than the avengers. Add to the fact that 'the neighbourhood people' join in on the killing spree randomly gunning down anyone they see, gleefully celebrating like they'd won the euro millions and you have the nihilistic, generally funny picture. You can't take this movie seriously. At all. Ever. 

No weapon props left? No problem! A plunger will do!

Without doubt it is in the category of 'so bad its almost entertaining' with the emphasis heavily on 'Bad'. Enjoy!

LETTERBOXD REVIEW OF NIGHTCRAWLER

night crawler - movie review blog

 A dark piece centred around an enigmatic, yet strangely disturbed character called Lou bloom (Gyllenhaal) as he trawls the murky streets of LA crime journalism.  We are not quite sure which is darker, Bloom or the crimes that he videotapes. As a voyeur in this tense game we wonder exactly how far Bloom will go to get that killer 'story' and be successful. From his sunken, dark features to his intense stare we are drawn into the twisted world and mind of a sociopath. Enigmatic, determined with no empathy for humankind. He is more akin to a robot than man, not skilled in any form of social graces. In fact you might say that he hates people and they are obstacles to attaining his status and success. 

From moment one it kept me glued wondering exactly how far and what Bloom was willing to do to attain 'success'.