|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Dec 12, 2019 6:11:50 GMT
Swim never thought he'd be sad to see Michael Bay's name NOT on a movie. Isn't his ridiculous excess the only reason the first two (especially 2) are popular? Swim thinks this felt more like a Fast and the Furious movie than Bad Bois, especially the emphasis on family. Overall, meh. Action is okay, comedy less so: Martin and Will are old, their new millennial crew are young. You get it.
As for Richard Jewell...that movie was extremely solid. It almost works as a gritty deconstruction of Paul Blart: Mall Cop...heh. I'm sad Hauser isn't getting award recognition. Rockwell and Bates are great as well. Best thing Clint's made in years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Dec 20, 2019 8:14:40 GMT
I didn't realize there was a new Bad Boys movie. I won't see either one of these in theater but I'll look forward to them coming out on streaming.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Dec 20, 2019 8:21:59 GMT
I thought Bad Boys 3 wasn't coming out until January.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Dec 20, 2019 9:01:03 GMT
I thought Bad Boys 3 wasn't coming out until January. Test screening. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 20, 2019 15:20:26 GMT
I really liked Richard Jewell. The whole cast is quite good. I’d like it if Hauser got a nomination but I’d think they’ll try pushing Rockwell for a supporting nomination.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 20, 2019 17:49:39 GMT
Richard Jewell is one of the best movies of the year imo and Clint Eastwood's best movie in at least a decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Dec 20, 2019 20:51:36 GMT
IlI’d think they’ll try pushing Rockwell for a supporting nomination. I'd be down for that. Certainly a stronger nomination than Pitt. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Feb 1, 2020 11:26:46 GMT
RICHARD JEWELL is about the 1996 Summer Olympics bombing, and the scenes of the discovery of the bomb and the explosion itself are well-executed, but what makes the movie as a whole riveting is how likeable the title character (a security guard who found the bomb and was then wrongly accused of planting it in order to look like a hero) and the people who believe in him are, as well as how they all play off each other. How ironic that a big flaw is the unlikeability of another character. Look, it's alright to write a character with a negative personality. Hell, in some cases, it's better. However, there has to be something about them that makes the viewer want to watch them. It can be a trait that makes them a little sympathetic, an interesting method to do bad deeds, etc... Reporter Kathy Scruggs is unpleasant and that's that. From her first scene, I wanted to look away from the screen. Script writer Billy Ray does try to redeem her in the last part, but her change is too sudden to be believable. Now that I've watched the movie, I'm going to do some research on the plot's historical accuracy. Oh. I'm finding out that the movie is controversial. That people claim that Kathy wasn't like this in real life. All the more reason to hate the character right? Wait, it says here that it's mainly about her sleeping with FBI Agent Tom Shaw in exchange for information. OK, I agree that it's wrong to tarnish a person's image like that (the names of some characters were changed, so why not do that with Kathy too?). I also agree that behavior is unprofessional. That being said, let's give the movie some credit. It seemed like Shaw and Kathy had history. That she didn't sleep with any guy who could give her a scoop. Also, there's a character named Nadya Light who proves that Ray does have an understanding on what makes a woman strong without resorting to stereotypes. Now, where was I? Oh, right. The performances are good, but the last scene made me think that Ray didn't know how to end the story. It's a flashforward in which Richard is now a cop. No time is given to show his satisfaction for finally achieving his dream. Watson Bryant (his friend and lawyer) arrives and tells him that the real culprit has been arrested. They both look as happy as they should, but they doesn't sound as happy as they should (clearly the dialogue is to blame here). Watson then leaves. Isn't this a moment you should experience together, considering how it affects you both? Then, the epilogue text reveals that Richard eventually died of a heart attack. Just like that. There were hints throughout the movie that he had a health problem, but you still needed to slowly ease the audience into it. Why not skip the scene and go directly to the text, which would say the good things he did after the events of the movie and then explain how he died? What's worse is that it's the only sentence about him in this epilogue. You put him on a pedestal for 2 hours and then push him out of it by making us leave the theatre with that information. 7/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Mar 1, 2020 10:00:46 GMT
BAD BOYS PART I 3/10 BAD BOYS PART II 3/10 It appears that the makers of BAD BOYS FOR LIFE took notes of what people didn't like about BAD BOYS PARTS I & II and tried to fix them. It's not 2 1/2 hours long and the audience is actually allowed to enjoy what's on screen, because editors Dan Lebental and Peter McNulty and cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert know how an action sequence should be presented. Also, instead of relying on only 1 (yellow) or 2 colors (orange & blue), multicolored neon lights are present in many scenes (they're even attached to the vehicles during car/motorcycle chases). Many shots look good, and some of them showcase impressive camerawork. Do you remember when Detectives Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett (the protagonists) harassed Reggie (the boy who wanted to go out with Marcus' daughter), which left critics and audience appalled? He appears again, but they all get along. Unfortunately, 2 hours is still not a justified amount for this plot, the humor is still hit-or-miss, and Martin Lawrence's performance is more over-the-top than ever. Without getting into spoilers, the climax involves a place on fire. The characters don't cough due to the smoke. Not even once. There's another cop named Rita Secada. Mike says he used to go out with her. I thought that she was supposed to be the psychiatrist that he slept with (the one who called him papi). There's a scene where they talk about emotions and Mike asks her not to psychoanalyze him. I asked the friend I saw this with if it's possible for a psychiatrist who works for a police department to become an officer and he said that it's allowed. Also, it would be another form of course correction (turning an objectified character in a kind-of misogynistic franchise into a strong woman). Alas, she's a new character. She's the head of a team that consists of younger cops played by recognizable actors. I assumed they would either be revealed as villains in disguise or that Marcus and Mike would pass on the torch to them for the next installment, but none of that happened. In fact, they weren't really highlighted in the marketing. That's something a blockbuster with an R rating would normally do to make sure the 18-25 demographic would buy tickets (not having a PG-13 rating is already seen as a risk). Yes, Will Smith is still a big star, but Martin isn't, and 17 years is enough time to make an I.P. lose its appeal as a brand. However, their strategy still resulted in a box office hit. 5/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
