B+ | An accomplished headhunter risks everything to obtain a valuable painting owned by a former mercenary. Directed by Morten Tyldum Initial Review by Phil Crone |
Seeing “Ant-Man” last summer reminded me how much I love a good heist movie. The meticulous planning, the big score, the “everything fell perfectly into place” aspect… I love it all. When researching other great Heist movies, “Headhunters” continuously popped up, so I had to give it a shot. Headhunters does an excellent job of hitting all the marks of a good heist movie while also adding a deeper spin on the motivations of its protagonist.
29 Comments
Initial Review by Phil “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” is definitely an odd movie for this group, as we tend to lean toward things that are a bit more obscure. I imagine that a lot of people are going to blast through this review with just a few sentences, as I think most of us have formed our opinions on this franchise long ago. However, even though Ashli probably picked this one b/c it was the only one streaming, she picked the right one to have a conversation about. It’s easier to talk about where these movies fit in with regard to the series as opposed to stand-alone (more on that in a bit), and Goblet of Fire’s place as the transition from children’s story to the more mature young adult themes gives it a special place in the series. Just for starters, even if you don’t like the HP franchise, you can’t help but respect it. Very few movie franchises are consistently of a high quality. Just look at some superhero franchises. Spiderman 3 is just bad. X-Men: The Last Stand is an abomination. Blade Trinity…. Anyway, that could hit a soft spot for some here. Numerous franchises ebb and flow in quality, even when all the same people are involved. (Godfather? Matrix?) Somehow, HP has gone through multiple directors and screenwriters, yet in eight movies, the lowest RT score is a 79% (Order of the Phoenix). Say what you want about this franchise, but that is damn impressive. Near the end of its run, I was never nervous that I was going to waste my time going to an HP movie at midnight (not by my choice), b/c they were all good. Goblet of Fire stands out as an important step in this franchise as it is the first one to not end in a necessarily happy way. In fact, for a “kids movie,” the ending is bleak as shit. Harry has successfully thwarted Voldemort in the first two entries of the series, but this meeting sees him barely escape with his life while also getting his friend Cedric killed. I might be wrong, but Cedric might be the first “good guy” killed in the HP universe. This was a pivotal moment for the franchise, proving that, sometimes, the good guys don’t win, they just live to fight another day. This would be a pretty run-of-the-mill series if we just followed the same formula from Sorcerer’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets, but Goblet of Fire changes all that and launches us into the real story of the franchise. Beyond that, Goblet of Fire is similar to other entries of the series in that it touches on more base emotional issues that would speak to a teenage audience. It’s a theme that is constantly touched on in the series: even though we’re dealing with a group of gifted wizard teenagers, they’re still typical kids. We have the subplot of Ron’s jealousy of Harry getting selected for the tournament and the awkward Ron/Hermione relationship beginning to take form. Ron gets the most “human” material this time around, which probably isn’t good as Rupert Grint is the weakest actor of the three main protagonists. The relationship stuff works pretty well, but the jealousy subplot feels a little forced given the overarching story and who Harry is in this world. Speaking of Harry, this is probably his weakest movie in the series. Daniel Radcliffe is not given a whole lot interesting to do this time around, giving the bulk of the spotlight in the down scenes to Ron & Hermione. There are other nice moments that are relatable to some, such as the level of embarrassment Ron has for his Yule Ball getup (I avoided anything like this in my youth; also, I still really hate the Yule Ball scene). HP movies always have good setpieces, but Goblet of Fire’s are some of the weaker entrants into the series. The first Tournament trial with the dragons is a great opener, but the scale of the remaining two leave something to be desired. Likewise, the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort is one of the weaker final battles, but the exchange between Ralph Fiennes and Daniel Radcliffe is well-done as usual. This is the first movie in the series with Fiennes, and is big introduction to the series is both impressive and “terrifying” for a movie in this genre. Fiennes gets off some good lines and plays the intimidating all-powerful lord of darkness well. All the HP movies are good, but Goblet of Fire is one of the more special entries. It ushered in a new tone and era for the series, a world where not everyone who should live happily ever after necessarily did. It definitely has its weaknesses in relation to the other movies, but it’s understandable why it’s considered in the upper echelon of HP movies. + Brings Harry Potter out of the “happily ever after” era into a more adult and interesting series + Ralph Fiennes is great in his Voldemort debut + Solid acting in the downtime captures typical teenage angst - Ron heavy - Setpieces leave something to be desired in the context of the series as a whole Grade: B+
Original Review by Phil When I first heard about “Locke,” I thought it was a novel concept that drew me in more out of curiosity than anything else. Tom Hardy, in a car, on the phone, for 84 minutes. That’s it. It’s a strange concept, but somehow, it works wonderfully. Locke could have very easily been nothing more than a gimmick. It wound up being a fascinating character study for modern times. I think this movie really spoke to me because every conversation happens via phone. As technology advances, we are forced to have more of our meaningful interactions through the use of technology. This really struck me as I thought back on how many of my major interactions in the past and still today do not take place face-to-face. The company I work for is very big into “agile” workforces. As a result, my manager is in Houston, and the three people who report to me are located in Green Bay, Tallahassee, and Mumbai. Needless to say, you have to be a little adaptive with how you work in a situation like that. I’ve had a couple projects where I’ve had to be very organized in order to talk someone on the other end through it. Unlike Ivan Locke, I’m not nearly as organized or detail oriented. If you know the Myers-Brigg personality scale, then you were probably able to peg Ivan as an ISTJ. In comparison, I am an ENTP. Pretty much as far away as you can get. I got a kick out of the conversations with Donal as it reminded me of having to do something similar with an intern, and I was pretty scattered to say the least. Thanks to that stupid “Perceptor” portion, I pretty much loathe organization and planning, opting for adaptability when things change. Ivan had his plan and his backup plan. He had the entire concrete pour down to a science (thanks “Sensor”), while I was much more likely to forget a step. As a manager, I couldn’t help but respect Ivan. I don’t have the same envy of Ivan in his personal life, as parts of it also hit a little close to home. For the first two years of my relationship with my wife, we had a long distance relationship. Long distance relationships suck. Several conversations that should have been in person could not be b/c it just isn’t feasible to drive four hours roundtrip because someone had a bad day or was really questioning major decisions in their life up to that point. It’s a feeling of powerlessness. This was only exacerbated by me, b/c I consider myself a fixer. Ivan is the same way. Leaving things in a bad place isn’t in either of our DNA. With the concrete pour, he had his plan, and he knew a capable person could execute. He doesn’t have a backup plan here, as Bethan went into labor early. It was amazing to see how a man could be so prepared and in control of one aspect of his life was so much the opposite in the other. Ivan’s plan for his personal life was terrible, and all suffered as a result. I thought these scenes were some of the best acting of the movie. Hardy is great here, understanding the hopelessness of the situation yet still soldiering on, hoping to get another chance when he already knows that isn’t going to happen. I couldn’t help but feel awful for everyone involved here. Kristina had done everything to make sure Ivan was going to have a relaxing, happy night with his family – she got his favorite beer and she was wearing whatever stupid shirt Ivan liked. However, I may have felt worse for his son, especially when he pleads with Ivan to come home and they’ll just rewatch the game like it’s live, essentially pretending this whole ordeal never happened. Our last important relationship is that with Bethan, Ivan’s one-night stand and now baby mama. Here, we see the “Thinker” portion of Ivan’s personality in full force, and again, his interactions with Bethan felt relatable in a very bad way to me. Ivan has a problem with being brutally honest. It’s what got him in this situation to begin with. I appreciated and understood his entire interaction with Bethan. He refused to lie to allow her to feel a little bit better, essentially admitting he felt nothing for her. This is a very “Thinker” trait I know all too well. Ivan is brutally honest to a fault, refusing the let Bethan believe that she is anything more than a fling. The same happens with anyone he talks to about her. It’s commendable and cringeworthy. I think this also works itself into the “fixer” aspect that I felt like Ivan had. Thinkers have a difficult time grasping that time will heal all wounds. Instead, there must be definable actions that lead to the positive outcome. We don’t understand things getting better by doing nothing. This is what I would expect to happen with Kristina, eventually being willing to forgive Ivan once the emotion of the situation has gone down. It could take a while, years even, for that emotion to subside. In general, thinkers struggle with emotion. We tend to come off as callous, not willing to fake an emotional reaction that doesn’t exist. It’s easy to think of Ivan as a jerk in his reactions with Bethan, but that wasn’t how I interpreted it at all. He was just honest, helping her understand the reality of the situation. He wanted to help, he wanted to see his infant son rose well, but wasn’t going to marry Bethan or anything like that. Ivan understands how things will play out based on his actions – it’s why he wasn’t at all shocked with how everything played in his personal and professional life on that car ride. So, ultimately, how do we all feel about Ivan’s decision to go see Bethan on that night? It’s easy to see it as selfless as noble, but I found it to be an extremely selfish decision. In the first shot, when Ivan is deciding to turn left or right, he’s playing the scenarios out in his head. He knows what will happen if he goes to Bethan. He’s played the entire movie out in his head, yet he still does it. Is anyone better off by his actions? Ultimately, yes, one person is better off – Ivan himself. We see it in the final shot, the look of satisfaction that he knows he made the “right” decision. He has no problem jeopardizing a concrete pour costing millions of dollars or wrecking his own family in order to relieve himself of the guilt of not being there for the birth of his bastard. He could have come later, as his feelings for Bethan are made perfectly clear and it never seemed to me like he was doing it for her. Once we have the reveal that Ivan grew up without a father, everything fell into place. This was a make-up call for his upbringing. Ivan reflecting alone on his own father is the one part of the movie that felt clunky and out of place. Hardy yelling at a ghost in the backseat just felt really goofy and dumb. “Locke” is a movie that works for me because of how relatable Ivan was to me. I can understand a person really hating this movie, but I think that depends on who you are as a person. Ivan was a very relatable character to me, as we share several character flaws. I don’t agree with his decision to go to Bethan, nor do I find it noble, but I do understand it. He made one bad decision, and he gave up everything to pay for that decision. He did it willingly though, which is what makes him such an interesting character. I’d like to think he gets back to a sense of normalcy someday, when time has healed all these wounds. However, I know Ivan – I don’t expect him to sit idly by and wait for that. + Fascinating character study + Well acted + Proves to be more than a gimmick - Dad ghost stuff was silly Grade: A
Initial Review by Phil
“Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.” - Confucius What a perfect way to describe “Blue Ruin.” Let’s face it; most revenge movies are outlandish to say the least. It’s not often you find a movie within this genre that is brutally honest about any revenge story. Blue Ruin draws quite a bit of inspiration from classic family feuds such as the Hatfields & McCoys (especially considering the setting is Kentucky & Virginia) and takes an honest look at the pointlessness of revenge and the far too simple means of carrying it out in our society. Even though this is a family vs family sort of thing, we are dealing with a limited story involving Dwight Evans, a man with no purpose in life until he finds one in the form of avenging his parents’ death when their killer is released from jail. Dwight doesn’t exactly have a “particular set of skills” that makes him cut out for the job like other revenge movie protagonists. This, in addition to fantastic directing by Jeremy Saulnier, adds to the tension in every scene where Dwight must fight off the Clelands. Even one-on-one, he’s in over his head with any of them, so we are never sure how he’s going to escape any scenario. Everything about Dwight’s journey was strangely relatable because he was just “a guy.” He couldn’t sew his own leg up b/c that’s something that maybe one in a million people could ever do. He couldn’t shoot a gun either. He was an everyman through and through. Dwight is an outsider in this world he’s stepped into, and we are discovering how it works with him. The only funny line of the movie comes at the expense of Dwight’s ignorance when he tells Teddy he’ll let him out when he finds a gun and Teddy, almost puzzled, tells Dwight he can get him a gun no problem. It’s this reaction that gives the audience an idea of what world we’re in. Dwight’s interactions with Ben involving getting a gun were particularly interest. Ben gives him a carbine b/c he got it from a gun show and there are no papers involved. Realizing Dwight cannot shoot, Ben switches him to a buckshot rifle. The Clelands have a comical number of guns, and despite getting two days to clean the house top to bottom, Dwight doesn’t find them all. It’s the Second Amendment taken to its illogical extreme to say the least. Couple the access to firearms with the type of people we’re dealing with here. The Hatfields & McCoys are a strange and fascinating piece of American history. The bulk of the settlers in the Cumberland Gap region, which includes the two famous families, are descendants of Anglo-Saxon farmers from Scotland, England, and Ireland. They are a notoriously prideful people, willing to settle disagreements amongst themselves. The Clelands are very much patterned off this template. Their motivation is solely that of their pride. It isn’t terribly different from the gangland battles we discussed in The Warriors or Boyz N The Hood. In the end, Dwight “succeeds” in enacting his revenge, but even he recognizes the futility of his endeavor. There isn’t much dialogue in this movie, but many lines were affecting and cast a damning light on all the proceedings. From Sam calling Dwight “weak” in their final interaction to Dwight lamenting the fate of himself and the Clelands due to their parents’ infidelity, the dialogue is sparse and affecting. Truth be told, some of it felt a little too on the nose. Dwight is a character I have mixed feelings about. For the most part, I just feel bad for him. Macon Blair did an excellent job portraying Dwight as a regular guy in way over his head, clearly having no idea what was going to happen next. He entered a world he didn’t understand and was in no way ready for it, and he survived as long as he did by the grace of God or his friend Ben. The audience winds up rooting for Dwight as an underdog out for justice. He rightfully has no faith in the system and comes to the conclusion that vigilantism is his only choice. It’s a sad commentary that Dwight comes from a place where this thinking is not only acceptable, but almost expected. We hear it in Dwight’s voice at the end, resigned to his fate that this was the only outcome. Who’s at fault here? The justice system? The culture of violence that permeates the region? These ease of access to an arsenal so vast it would make The Bullet Farmer from Mad Max blush? In the end, it seems the answer is “all of the above.” Blue Ruin is an excellent movie that gives a grim commentary on justice and vengeance in the outer fringes of our society. You could argue it’s punishingly grim, almost to a fault. Dwight’s tale of revenge is not fun or satisfying like many other revenge stories. It’s what probably actually happens when a man seeks revenge. Well done on a realistic take on a genre that sorely lacks it. + Unique revenge story spin + Good draws from society and history + Macon Blair makes Dwight a sympathetic figure + Excellent directing by Saulnier builds tension - Punishingly bleak Grade: A- |
AuthorsJUST SOME IDIOTS GIVING SURPRISINGLY AVERAGE MOVIE REVIEWS. Categories
All
Archives
April 2023
Click to set custom HTML
|