What would you do if you and your family were stuck in the territory of a ferocious lion? For Dr. Nate Samuels (Idris Elba) and his daughters Meredith (Iyana Halley) and Norah (Leah Jeffries), they find out very quickly that it is not an easy situation to be in. While in South Africa the Samuels and their friend Martin (Sharlto Copley) find themselves in the hunting grounds of a rogue lion that doesn’t want anything invading its territory. With their car crashed and not knowing when the lion will strike again the group does everything they can to survive.
Beast tries hard to be more than the typical man vs. nature outline but unfortunately ends up being just that. That’s not necessarily a bad thing but there really isn’t anything new here. With that being said there is plenty to enjoy. This is an extremely tense movie as you never know when the beast will make his next appearance. It’s set up like a theme park attraction with plenty of jump scares to get you popping out of your seat and gripping your arm rest.
This is a beautiful looking movie. Being shot in South Africa you get a lot of beautiful scenery and the cinematography here is amazing at times. There are many single take sequences that add so much more to a few scenes and really elevates the intensity throughout. The pacing here works well as the movie doesn’t overstay its welcome. That doesn’t leave much in the way of character development, but they give enough exposition in the beginning to make it work.
As for the beast himself the CGI used does go back and forth. At times it looks great but there are a lot of times when it looks questionable, and it becomes distracting. There are a few other lions that appear, and the CGI used for them is fantastic, however those lions don’t get into much action so they are easier to animate I would assume. During some of the action scenes there are some character decisions that don’t make much sense but in a situation like this it is hard to say exactly how someone would act so it doesn’t necessarily take you out of the movie.
There are not many characters in the movie but everyone in the main cast does do a good job in their roles. Idris Elba does a fine job as the lead here. Even in some of his lesser movies he has always given a solid performance. It’s nice to see Sharlto Copley pop up in another movie. He steals essentially every scene he is in as one of Elba’s long-time friends. Most surprising are Iyana Halley and Leah Jeffries as Elba’s daughters. Thankfully, neither one of them suffer from annoying kid syndrome and they both add a lot to their scenes.
Overall, Beast is essentially Jaws meets Jurassic Park. It provides a tense and fast-paced roller coaster ride with good performances, great action set pieces and some fantastic camera work. If only it could have done more to separate itself from other movies that are similar it could have been one of the better man vs. nature movies.
In a sobering tale of resentment and regret, the story of Stone follows parole officer, Jack (Robert De Niro), who finds himself embroiled in a case that threatens to expose the futile nature of his own existence. Stone‘s engrossing character-driven story is elevated by a number of captivating performances, with the likes of Robert De Niro, Edward Norton, and Milla Jovovich portraying a cast of psychologically intriguing characters. Stone‘s absorbing narrative is complemented by an enriching score, which culminates in a poignant viewing experience that has yet to be fully appreciated since its release in 2010.
With his retirement fast approaching, Jack’s final parole case sees him cross swords with convicted arsonist, Stone (Edward Norton), a man whose desperation to be released knows no bounds. Unwilling to leave his fate in the hands of a parole officer, Stone takes the drastic measure of unleashing his lover (Milla Jovovich) on Jack, who sets out on a path of manipulation and seduction to secure her lover’s freedom. Having previously collaborated in 2001’s crime drama, The Score, Norton and De Niro once again build a relationship brimming with distrust and resentment, and it is the latter’s performance that proves the most fascinating and deeply moving.
De Niro has been widely recognized for his portrayal of characters with an immeasurable amount of self-assurance and control, the likes of which include, Sam Rothstein (Casino), Jimmy Conway (Goodfellas), and Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver). In Stone, De Niro breaks type in his portrayal of a broken man who barely manages to uphold the facade of his own life, which culminates in one of his best and certainly most underrated performances to date. From the moment we set eyes on Jack, his insecurities are laid bare to the audience, as he threatens to throw his own child out the window once his wife threatens to leave him. His marriage is an everlasting facade, as he and Madylyn (Frances Conroy) are barely capable of engaging in conversation, even during rare moments of bonding over bible verses. As Jack and Stone clash
over ideological values during their parole meetings, Jack finds himself becoming acutely aware of his own shortcomings, setting a gradual and powerful downward spiral in motion.
Jack’s actions over the course of the film should render him utterly dislikable, but in light of De Niro’s performance, we instead grow to pity this empty shell of a man. De Niro is a master at portraying boiling tension within a character, a tension that eventually bubbles to the surface in a powerful release of pent-up rage. Such moments in Stone prove entirely captivating, with these raw outbursts coinciding with Jack’s manipulation at the hands of both Stone and Lucetta. Milla Jovovich’s performance is a far cry from her mainstream exploits in the Resident Evilfranchise, whose manipulative nature is concealed beneath an innocent and giddy personality, that lures Jack into a false sense of security. Lucetta’s unhinged personality combined with Stone’s desperate journey of spiritualization makes for a complex antagonistic duo, whose own character journeys drive the story forward as much as Jack’s internal shortcomings.
The rising tension in the story is complemented by a captivating and unsettling score, the likes of which feels reminiscent of a Terrence Malick work. The disjointed and fading instrumentals serve to magnify the inner turmoil beneath the surface of each character, with the accompanying use of cinematography often embodying arthouse qualities. These components certainly feed into the core themes of the film, not least the exploration of religious values and meditation techniques, which are appropriately implemented into a story rooted in sin and spirituality. Whilst the deeper meaning of these themes can prove difficult to decipher at times, they certainly provide viewers with ample opportunity to reassess their narrative relevance in future sittings.
The pacing of the story is reminiscent of a ticking time bomb, as Jack is slowly but surely worn down by the collaborative and manipulative efforts of Stone and Lucetta. This simmering tension leads towards a sobering story conclusion, one that is brimming with several powerful and fulfilling moments. De Niro’s character arc renders his final contributions to the film the most memorable, as he unleashes much of the inner turmoil that has been growing incessantly inside him. Stone‘s concluding moments leave you in a sense of reflective awe, as the simmering tension boils over into a powerful conclusion befitting of the film’s stellar qualities.
It is somewhat perplexing how a film as engrossing and poignant as Stone has been swept under the proverbial rug since its release in 2010, especially in light of De Niro’s captivating lead performance. In a role that has likely been overlooked amongst a stellar portfolio of Oscar nominations, De Niro’s performance in Stone is arguably one of his finest in recent years, with the film deserving of more favorable critical attention than it has garnered since its initial release.
Set on the sun-soaked coast of an Italian island, Silent Land tells the story of two Polish-born lovers, whose vacation is thrust into misery following a series of unfortunate events. With tensions rising, the longevity of their idyllic getaway threatens to unravel the very foundations of their relationship, as the pair struggle to come to terms with their own involvement in a grave matter. Despite a promising premise, Silent Land ultimately suffers from a lack of substantiated development in terms of both story progression and character growth, culminating in a project which overindulges in cinematography and underdelivers in story execution.
The deteriorating relationship between Adam (Dobromir Dymecki) and Anna (Agnieszka Zulewska) forms the backbone of the narrative, as the audience tracks their every move across the stunning Italian landscape. In spite of this, it is incredibly difficult to relate to this middle- class couple, whose time abroad largely consists of sexual intercourse, sun-bathing, and begrudging interactions with nearby residents. Their judgmental nature and cynical attitude toward everything around them, including each other, deter the audience from sympathizing with their unfortunate circumstances.
What proves far more problematic, however, is the lack of backstory each lover is afforded, the likes of which could have provided meaningful context to their relationship and the vacation itself. Their past, livelihoods, and values are entirely neglected throughout the story, leading to a spontaneous combustion of emotion and regret that is difficult to comprehend in the eyes of the viewer. Their growing resentment for one another culminates in petty squabbles and attempts to antagonize one another whilst in the company of others, though it’s often difficult to decipher the inner feelings that would motivate such self-destructive actions. Whilst the latter stages of the film delve more deeply into Adam’s insecurities, the entirety of the film fails to explore this deteriorating relationship in a meaningful way, despite being afforded almost two hours to do so.
Over the course of its run time, Silent Land makes a conscious effort to capture Italian summertime in all its beauty, with director Aga Woszczynska favoring the use of extreme long shots with minimal camera movement. Whilst these shots provide stunning backdrops and capture a growing sense of isolation, they often linger for far longer than is necessary, a frustration that is compounded by the film’s lack of meaningful story development. The story crawls along at a snail’s pace, with Anna and Adam often indulging in repeated instances of dining, jogging, and scuba diving during their sun-soaked retreat. The growing tension between the two lovers ultimately doesn’t amount to a great deal of meaningful story development, culminating in an ending that only serves to highlight the film’s lack of substantiated narrative. Whilst the execution of the final scene should be admired for its creativity, it is ultimately wasted in light of such an unfulfilling story.
Intriguing characters who can be related to or at least understood, are fundamental to a film like Silent Land, though it is often impossible to connect with either protagonist during their holiday from hell. The relentless wallowing in self-inflicted misery eventually proves tiresome, especially in light of the couple’s unrelatable first-world problems, the likes of which include a non-functioning swimming pool and their inability to speak Italian. In addition to both Polish and Italian, the film incorporates English and even French into numerous scenes, which doesn’t particularly add or take anything away from the experience, in light of more significant issues elsewhere. The performances of Dobromir Dymecki and Agnieszka Zulewska should be judged in relation to the material at their disposal, as in spite of many monotonous dialogue lines, they each turn in an ample performance and excel in revealing moments of lament and regret.
Despite a promising story premise and stunning Italian setting, Silent Land fails to deliver a meaningful viewing experience, due in large part to its unrelatable protagonists, whose internal struggles and relevant backstories are left largely unexplored. The time afforded to capture the beautiful outdoor environments could have been better spent developing the story and the relationship at its core, both of which feel rather slender and in need of substantiated growth.
Having rightfully earned a staggering 17 Academy Award nominations during their coveted careers, the sheer prospect of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino collaborating on screen has typically been met with eager anticipation. In the last 50 years, only 3 projects have succeeded in initiating an on-screen collaboration between Pacino and De Niro, following their respective contributions to Coppola’s Godfather 2 in 1974. Michael Mann would be the first director to reap the rewards of this undisputed partnership, thrusting Pacino and De Niro onto opposite sides of the law in his slick and stylish crime thriller, Heat.
24 years later, Martin Scorsese would eventually fulfill his own dream of uniting the pair in his gangster epic, The Irishman, with both projects drawing widespread acclaim and proving entirely worthy of the collaborative efforts of two Hollywood icons. In the 24 years between these two exceptional projects, De Niro and Pacino would mark their second collaboration in a far less successful endeavor. 2008’s Righteous Kill would prove entirely unworthy of the cast at its disposal, with the film’s disjointed narrative being marred by severely underdeveloped characters, the likes of whom are burdened by a tirade of expositional dialogue and a lack of meaningful on-screen direction.
The story of Righteous Kill follows two NYPD Detectives, Turk (De Niro) and Rooster (Pacino), who are investigating the emergence of a serial killer in the area. With the body count rising, the investigation soon manifests into a witch hunt, as evidence points toward the killer being a fellow officer of the law. The story is framed in a first-person perspective courtesy of De Niro’s character, who opens proceedings by confessing to 14 murders in cold blood.
Strangely enough, the film skips over the first 10 murders, failing to even mention the previous victims, rendering the inflated body count entirely irrelevant. The perplexity of the narrative doesn’t end there, as despite investigating the very murders he confessed to, Turk exhibits a bizarre lack of emotion during his time on each crime scene, which undermines the notion that we the audience are expected to believe that Turk is in fact, a killer on the loose. It seems as though the plot is ill- equipped to uphold the relevance of De Niro’s opening confession, as viewers would be forgiven for not being able to surmise any feasible whodunnit theory, due to the lack of developing leads in the case.
The killings themselves are often sporadic and exceptionally underwhelming in terms of execution. A select few dregs of society are typically introduced and killed in a matter of minutes, with these one-dimensional criminals proving unforgettable during the course of a frantically paced investigation. These flippant executions are often depicted in a series of jagged and grainy flashback sequences, which aren’t constructed in a way that builds mounting tension, as each murder culminates in an underwhelming series of gunshots. The implementation of rhyming obituaries that accompany each corpse forms the backbone of every forensic crime scene, as in the case of Righteous Kill, expositional tools play a major role in the film’s downfall.
Fans of Goodfellas would need little reminding of De Niro’s iconic smoking scene in the gangster classic, a scene that conveys the manipulative scheming of Jimmy Conway, which is achieved without a single line of dialogue being uttered. The same too could be said of Pacino’s internal processes in the likes of The Godfather and Scent of a Woman, as both men have proven themselves more than capable of conveying deep thoughts and emotions, without the need to indulge in revealing dialogue. Righteous Kill fails to provide its leading cast the means in which to express their character’s thoughts and desires, at least not in a manner that is entirely devoid of simplistic and revealing dialogue. Even when De Niro is afforded a moment to internally reflect during a scene, the reflection is inevitably interrupted by the arrival of voice-over dialogue, needlessly conveying thoughts and feelings that De Niro could express with a mere glance.
Whilst De Niro and Pacino were arguably beyond their prime years during this production, they certainly did their best to elevate the film beyond its mediocre standards. The charisma of both men and their unrivaled chemistry proves to be the film’s only redeeming factor, but even such infectious personalities aren’t capable of revamping a series of rigidly designed scenes. Both men are often confined to police formalities and crime scene procedures, rendering many scenes a star-studded adaptation of C.S.I. Characters are rarely afforded the opportunity to develop beyond the confines of the investigation, with the depth of De Niro’s character being limited to a series of rough sex acts he performs with a female colleague. The biggest compliment that could be afforded to both leading men is that they produced their best efforts in elevating Righteous Kill from an entirely unenjoyable film to a tolerable one at best.
With an estimated $60,000,000 budget at its disposal, many scenes seem entirely devoid of personality, partly due to a lack of ambition in scene composition and set design. The backdrop to each crime scene and NYPD office space proves entirely unremarkable and fails to inject any much-needed personality into a tirade of expositional story scenes. By comparing Righteous Kill with a crime drama like Killing Them Softly (a film renowned for its exceptional camera work and set design, which cost four times less to produce) you’d be forgiven for wondering if the $60,000,000 budget could have been better utilized to enrich these scenes.
The pacing of the entire film feels very frantic, not just in terms of editing, but also in terms of the progression and conclusion of its rather unhinged storyline. The story’s conclusion feels just as rushed as many of the scenes that preceded it and fails to sweep the mess of its perplexing narrative under the proverbial rug. The film’s final revelation raises more questions than it seeks to answer, drawing a close to a perplexing and underwhelming experience.
Of all the projects De Niro and Pacino could have collaborated on during the last 50 years, it is a mystery how the pair stumbled onto a project as uninspiring as Righteous Kill. Whilst the coveted duo did their best to elevate Righteous Kill beyond its mediocre standards, a flawed script and questionable direction ultimately rendered the film a colossal disappointment, wasting a rare opportunity to enjoy the collaborative efforts of two cinematic legends.
The prospect of being evicted from your family home, the home you’ve lived in your entire life, is a daunting one, which is encapsulated so perfectly in 99 Homes. In a world where the price of property matters more than the well-being of its inhabitants, 99 Homes explores the disturbing world of home repossession and the disposal nature of morality in a society dominated by money.
The story follows Dennis Nash (Andrew Garfield), an everyday man who reluctantly accepts a dubious work proposal from the real estate developer (Michael Shannon) responsible for his eviction, in a bid to win back his property and re-home his family. Nash is presented as an honest and hardworking family man, who has little to show for his efforts in life, a frustration we can all relate to for one reason or another. His ambitions in life are solely centered around the well-being of his family, as he fights tooth and nail to keep a roof over their heads, a roof that is firmly attached to the house he has lived in his entire life.
From the outset, Garfield portrays Nash as a man who deserves little wrongdoing in light of his painstaking situation, as his inherent lack of value in society leads him towards a character defining crossroads. Garfield’s relatable performance enables the audience to invest in Nash’s dubious decision to work for the menacing real estate developer, a decision that forces Nash to forsake pride in exchange for his family’s wellbeing. Nash’s story is a prime example of efficient story-telling, as the audience is immediately drawn into the alternating perspectives of home repossession, without being burdened by a tirade of exposition relating to property management.
From the moment Nash agrees to work for Carver (the property developer responsible for his eviction), the story remains riveting and full of conflict, as Nash’s deal with the devil sees him sacrifice morality for financial security. Nash’s drive for income forces him to dish out the same fate he suffered to other unfortunate evictees, as he finds himself deliberating the values of the world he and Carver inhabit. Hard work is for suckers and the law is a game in which you either win or lose. The social commentary embedded within the narrative regarding law and property is an increasingly relevant thematic choice in today’s world, as in spite of all your good deeds, the law can render you and your family worthless. The law can drag you out of your home in the blink of an eye, as in a world dominated by money, tenants must adhere to the rules of the game or risk facing the wrath of calculating businessmen like Carver.
99 Homes never shies away from this sobering social commentary, as it enriches the enthralling story, adding contemporary relevance to Nash’s journey, a journey that upholds a brisk pace throughout, but ultimately suffers from a premature ending. The concluding moments of the story are embroiled in a state of limbo, with the audience left deprived of the powerful ending the story deserved, as the film doesn’t entirely commit to a fully developed conclusion or a deliberately ambiguous one.
The mere thought of earning a living from the man who tried to take yours away makes for an intriguing story, a story enriched by two stand-out lead performances. Andrew Garfield and Michael Shannon initially present themselves as polar opposite characters, who are drawn together by Nash’s eviction and through their willingness to get their hands dirty, albeit for entirely different reasons. Shannon’s outstanding performance as Carver embodies the characteristics of a world dominated by money, with Shannon adding a much-needed layer of complexity to this cold calculating money machine.
Carver could have easily been portrayed as a one-dimensional degenerate individual, but rather than condemn Carver throughout the story, we are invited to understand and appreciate his menacing nature, since society is ultimately responsible for its amalgamation. Carver has merely adapted to his toxic environment and sets Nash out on the very same path, as for all the film’s entertaining qualities,99 Homes presents a very compelling argument regarding the bleak role of capitalism in today’s society.
Whilst Nash’s story is initiated by a deal with the devil, the disturbing events of the narrative shine light on a startling reality. The only devil in existence is not the individual, but rather the system and society they inhabit. 99 Homes is a prime example of efficient storytelling, helmed by two psychologically intriguing characters, whose perspectives enrich our understanding of the world they live in. Films have the power to get us thinking about the world we inhabit and to alter our perspective on it, as 99 Holmes firmly grasps the viewer by the scruff of their shirt collar and drags them through the nightmarish world of property repossession.
