• The Wicker Tree Review
     
      http://bartybooks.com/the-wicker-tree-review.htm
  • Man on a Ledge Review
     
      http://bartybooks.com/man-on-a-ledge-review.htm
  • One for the Money Review
     
      http://bartybooks.com/one-for-the-money-review.htm
  • The Grey Review
     
      http://bartybooks.com/the-grey-review.htm
  • The Front Line Review
     
      http://bartybooks.com/the-front-line-review.htm
  • Miss Bala Review
     
      http://bartybooks.com/miss-bala-review.htm
  • The Flowers of War Review
     
      http://bartybooks.com/the-flowers-of-war-review.htm

Movies under ‘Adventure’

The Grey Review

A lot of people will complain about this film not having enough action or being too introspective or whatever other reason they can think of not to like the film. But the reality is, this is a fantastic movie about survival when there is little to no chance of doing so. In fact, the film speaks about a lot of things. It speaks about man versus nature, about being male, and about the human spirit’s need to persist. What this film is not is an action-adventure or one about Liam Neeson punching wolves. No, the trailer really pulled a number on anyone expecting a loud movie about wolf killing.

The film’s setup is simple: Neeson’s bodyguard-like character to a group of men drilling in Alaska finds himself and several others having survived a plane crash and facing the cold, harsh wilderness in an attempt to get back to civilization. In said wilderness, they are faced with a pack of wolves who have had their space invaded by these men and are out for blood. The cast is mostly fantastic, but obviously Neeson shines in the lead role. He is the kind of hard-edged man we’ve seen of him recently, but like the rest of the cast, he is vulnerable. The film speaks a great deal about the male ego and what it means to actually be a man. We’re told that these men Neeson is protecting are some of the worst kind of men, being criminals and just general a-holes. But when faced with such impending doom, these men show their vulnerabilities. They come across as tough and gruff. Even Neeson plays things cold and disconnected, but over the course of the film we learn about each of the men, see the things they truly care about, and even see them face fear when they would otherwise not admit to being afraid. It’s a film that shatters the image of male machismo in a slow, thought provoking way.

Now, I’ve already mentioned that the film isn’t an action-adventure in the way that people might expect, but it is nonetheless heart racing (or stopping, take your pick). Nearly every minute of screen time is taken up by some kind of tension, and this is in part thanks to pure visual and audio goodness. The darkness surrounding the men, the sounds of trees breaking, or wolves howling. It all creates a frightening, edge of your seat atmosphere. And when the attacks come, they come quickly and quietly. It’s unsettling and has you bracing for more. It’s not just wolf attacks either. Nature is as much a killer of these men as the wolves, and facing the cold and an attempt to escape prove harrowing, and sometimes even fatal. It’s a film shot beautifully, but in that beauty is true terror, the kind of which few films these days can create. Sound is as much apart of that terror as it’s look, and the two combine fantastically.

The film is also fairly depressing. There is little hope here, and as the men come to face their individual fates, the sense of dread grows greater. This coupled with an ending that many may find disappointing will probably turn other viewers off. I, for one, was not. The movie is still quite fantastic despite it’s depressing tone, and even if the ending isn’t quite what we’d anticipate, there’s enough of a sense of finality in it that it seems justified. In other words, if all you expect is a film that is shallow and about what you see, instead of what you feel and think, then you will most likely be disappointed. But if you’re looking for an exciting, edge of your seat, thought provoking film with a lot to say, then The Grey is something you will probably enjoy. It’s certainly a heck of a good way to kick off a new year of cinema.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb1aTdC929w&feature=fvst]

the grey ending explained, the grey secret ending, the grey after credits, the grey ending, the grey extra scene, the grey surprise ending

Hugo Movies Reviews

Upon seeing the trailer for “Hugo”, I wasn’t overly impressed. The blaring emphasis on 3D made me worried it was more spectacle than substance. Still, it was directed by Martin Scorsese, and had Ben Kingsley in it, so I decided to put aside my fears and go see it anyway.

Am I ever glad I did! This is a sweet and gentle tale, full of unexpected warmth and depth. It is the story of Hugo Cabret, an orphan and keeper of the clocks at a train station in Paris. His only connection to his deceased father is a broken-down automaton the two were repairing before his father’s demise in a fire. When Hugo is caught stealing parts for the automaton by the old owner of a toy shop in the station (Kingsley), his booklet of sketches related to the curious mechanical man is taken from him. Attempting to retrieve it, he meets Isabelle, the goddaughter of the aged man. Together, they begin to unravel the mystery behind Kingsley’s character and help bring his true identity to light. (It shouldn’t be that much of a surprise to anyone with knowledge of early film history that has a chance to look at the cast list here on IMDb. Does the name “Georges Méliès” ring any bells?)

Asa Butterfield does capably in the title role, and Chloe Grace Moretz shines sublimely as the precocious Isabelle. Of course, Ben Kingsley gives a terrific performance, powerful and poignant. He plays a broken man anguished by the shadows of the past.

These three are the central figures of the film, yet the side characters are handled equally well. That really struck me. A lesser filmmaker might have let such characters come off as just caricatures, especially in a children’s film. Scorsese doesn’t allow for that to happen. Richard Griffiths’, Frances de la Tour’s and Christopher Lee’s characters are all skillfully imbued with humanity so that the audience feels for them and seems to get to know them in spite of their short periods on screen. Even Sacha Baron Cohen’s silly Station Inspector is more than a one-dimensional figure. In between his cartoonish antics and chases after Hugo, he is shown to be painfully shy, pining desperately for the affections of an attractive woman who sells flowers. We learn also that he was wounded in World War I, and that it was his days growing up without love in the strict environment of an orphanage that so embittered him towards the world. He is not merely some comic antagonist tossed in for the sake of slapstick. Instead, he is a fascinating and well-developed character in his own right. One feels compassion and pity for him, and hopes he will have the courage to speak up and win the heart of his love, that their quirky relationship will blossom into romance.

In short, this is a simply lovely film. There has been some uproar and befuddlement over the director of such films as “Taxi Driver” and “Goodfellas” making a ‘children’s movie’. I must admit I was a little abashed myself upon first hearing it. But “Hugo” shows that a so-called children’s movie doesn’t have to be inane or infantile. This is an intelligent and wondrous work – never sappy or banal. In part a tribute to the magic of cinema, it reminded me why I love motion pictures so much. With its richness and nuance, “Hugo” should appeal to children and adults alike. I realize that saying sounds a little clichéd, but in this case I have faith in the truth of it.


Fast Tube by Casper

another earth ending, another earth ending explained, frank barnes will colson, another earth ending meaning, rodney cole leipzig, newbiemovie

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows Movies Review

So what’s been happening lately?

There has been a series of bombings and assassinations across Europe and if these activities continue, war will erupt and Europe will become a field of casualties and devastation. And our favorite detective Sherlock Holmes suspects Professor James Moriarty as the mastermind behind all these events.

Meanwhile, amidst the bombings and destruction which are ravaging Europe, Sherlock Holmes’s partner, Dr. John Watson is finally getting married with his fiancée Mary. After being engaged in the first film, they are finally getting married and a short funny wedding scene has been reserved in the film. They’re even going for a honeymoon in Brighton. Or they were supposed to go for a honeymoon.

The train the couple boarded was filled with Moriarty’s henchmen and a loud, explosive battle ensues eliminating any hopes of an upcoming honeymoon. Even though Watson had been planning to retire from adventuring with Holmes after his wedding, he reluctantly becomes Holmes’s partner one more time while his wife is taken care of by Holmes’s brother, Mycroft. And the duo will receive an additional member to form a trio: the mysterious gypsy Madam Simza. Together, they try to stop Moriarty from continuing his cruel schemes and Holmes learns about Moriarty’s plan to start a war in which he will personally benefit from.

There are lots of action scenes that keep the film exciting and keep the film running in a constant, fast pace. The action sequences are louder, much more explosive, and much more energetic than the ones present in the predecessor. They are very loud, operatic, and exuberant. But some of the battle sequences are surprisingly quiet, such as a simple chess game held between Holmes and Moriarty. While you think a chess game would be boring, Guy Ritchie filmed it as if it was a grand battle. The sounds, the atmosphere, and the dialog adds another layer of tension and makes the chess game scene more atmospheric.

Not only the action scenes, but the humor here is outstanding. Most of the jokes and humor come from the titular character himself. His bizarre behavior, regardless of his intelligence add a layer of comedy to the film. His trademark hobby, disguising into several unexpected people is just purely entertaining. If it weren’t for Robert Downey Jr., the humor here would have collapsed and become a disaster.

And of course, the acting and performances by the cast were brilliant and outstanding. Robert Downey Jr. is just brilliant in portraying the titular detective. He is admirable and he is really a man of talent. Don’t worry, Jude Law also plays the role of Dr. John Watson perfectly. Together, they form an excellent chemistry. Also worth mentioning is Noomi Rapace as the mysterious gypsy Madam Simza, who not too long ago played the role of Lisbeth Salander in the original version of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”. Stephen Fry plays the role of Mycroft Holmes to perfection.

I’d like to take some time discussing the character of Professor James Moriarty. He is a very compelling villain. His professional life as a criminal mastermind is hidden beneath his profession as a professor in the University of Cambridge. He is much more intelligent, much more cunning, and much deadlier than Lord Blackwood of the previous film. While Holmes seems to be a detective that can do no wrong in the previous film, here, he will make mistakes. Here, he will feel pain. Moriarty is just a very powerful villain and a very suitable opponent for Holmes. (And remember the slow-motion scenes where Holmes elaborates his fighting strategies in his mind, Moriarty can do it too.) And to further compliment this is the performance of Jared Harris. While he may not look suitable as an antagonist, he actually makes a perfect choice.

However, the film uses too much slow-mo effects. This is largely noticeable in one particular scene which has an extensive use of slow-motion. I know the effect is mainly used to make it look more stylish but there is certainly too much of them. Running at a duration of 129 minutes, it could have been shortened if some of the slow-mo effects have been removed.

Not only the slow-mo effects, but this film seems to have lost its trademark element of mystery that is present in the first film. Even though there are some mystery present here, they are not as mind- boggling as the ones present in the first film. In the first film, there are just so many questions that popped up and Holmes really has something to work on. But here, it’s not mysterious. You know the full details immediately.

Nevertheless, “A Game of Shadows” is a pleasant experience and a whole lot more fun than the original film. Its operatic action scenes will entertain the audience and its comedic scenes will add a layer of laughter. With powerful performances from the cast, this film is one not to be missed in this movie season.

Final Verdict: “A Game of Shadows” is a stylish, fast-paced, yet comedic adventure which improves upon its predecessor in several aspects, and surely a highly recommended film.


Fast Tube by Casper

robert durst where is he now, Robert Durst Kathleen McCormack, marx panama moriarty barnes, will colson true story, explain the ending of the movie the debt, how did jurgen know cole was section 15
Page 1 of 1212345...10...Last »
40 queries. 0.656 seconds.