wellthatswhatithinkanyway
Joined Nov 2000
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings1.9K
wellthatswhatithinkanyway's rating
Reviews2.1K
wellthatswhatithinkanyway's rating
STAR RATING: ***** Brilliant **** Very Good *** Okay ** Poor * Awful
1983, the Pacific Northwest. A series of armoured heists rock the small town of Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, coming to the attention of FBI agent, Terry Husk (Jude Law) and his team, but Husk is carrying his own heavy burden. But the perpetrators, headed by charismatic young upstart, Bob Mathews (Nicolas Hoult), have a more sinister agenda at heart, and Husk and his team must stop him to avert a terrible event.
Current hot property Nicolas Hoult is back in another role, a darker, more unsettling part than usual, and even more so given it happens to be based on a true life tale, that I had never heard of before, making it even more perversely interesting. But he has fellow established acting royalty Jude Law to fall back on, and although they share no screen time together beyond shooting at each other, together they create a fusion that results in a dynamic result.
Director Justin Kurzel has crafted a film with echoes of Michael Mann's classic Heat, in its themes of heists and law enforcement, but it has a style and substance all of its own, with the husky, slow burning musical score, and naturally dim, blurry cinematography, reflecting Idaho at that time of year, that combine to craft an engaging and worthwhile thriller with a true life framework.
It's a true life tale that feels grounded in real life, and so is all the more engaging, with two solid leads carrying the proceedings in a reliably commanding fashion. ****
1983, the Pacific Northwest. A series of armoured heists rock the small town of Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, coming to the attention of FBI agent, Terry Husk (Jude Law) and his team, but Husk is carrying his own heavy burden. But the perpetrators, headed by charismatic young upstart, Bob Mathews (Nicolas Hoult), have a more sinister agenda at heart, and Husk and his team must stop him to avert a terrible event.
Current hot property Nicolas Hoult is back in another role, a darker, more unsettling part than usual, and even more so given it happens to be based on a true life tale, that I had never heard of before, making it even more perversely interesting. But he has fellow established acting royalty Jude Law to fall back on, and although they share no screen time together beyond shooting at each other, together they create a fusion that results in a dynamic result.
Director Justin Kurzel has crafted a film with echoes of Michael Mann's classic Heat, in its themes of heists and law enforcement, but it has a style and substance all of its own, with the husky, slow burning musical score, and naturally dim, blurry cinematography, reflecting Idaho at that time of year, that combine to craft an engaging and worthwhile thriller with a true life framework.
It's a true life tale that feels grounded in real life, and so is all the more engaging, with two solid leads carrying the proceedings in a reliably commanding fashion. ****
STAR RATING: ***** Brilliant **** Very Good *** Okay ** Poor * Awful
Jerry Springer had served as the Mayor of Cincinnati, but in the early 90's, when the chat show reigned supreme, and Oprah ruled the airwaves, he found himself presenting his own show in a daytime slot. The producers, and the public, found the format rather boring and indistinguishable from the many other chat shows doing the rounds at the time, until producer Richard Dominik, who'd worked on the zany National Enquirer publication, came in and completely transformed the style of the show, and it became renowned for its increasing outrageousness and depravity, setting it on a downward trend that left destruction in its wake.
The Jerry Springer Show now exists in something of a cultural vacuum, something those who remember it when it first came out can feel a weird kind of sentimentalism for, recalling firsthand the sensationalism and wackiness of the show when it first aired, but it now feels consigned to a dark, forgotten corner of the public consciousness, much like The Jeremy Kyle Show in the UK, and for much the same dark, sinister reasons. With Springer now dead, it feels like an equally tight lid has been shut on the affair.
The show was always renowned for its 'larger than life' approach to its guests and themes of the various shows, and leaving you wondering if any of these people could be real, and indeed, often it seems it wasn't. Much like the Kyle Show in the UK, we learn of how producers would often coach guests on what to say, how to say it and the trash talk their fellow guests had said. And like the Kyle show, the guests often weren't the best educated, and came from poorer, small American towns, and so even the trip to Chicago, where the show was filmed (where '...they'd see deep pan pizza for the first time') was in itself an experience.
Springer himself emerges as he always seemed, reserved and mild mannered, and more genuinely suited to the gentle nature of the original show when it began in 1991, before Dominik came along and transformed it into the 'freak show' it became, following a similar trajectory to how Vince McMahon transformed the wholesome nature of the WWE, but he did seem to quietly revel in the fame the show brought him, lapping up the trappings of the limelight, but all the time Dominik was always pulling the strings. All the wildness ran along, until there was a human cost in the shape of guest Nancy Campbell Penitz, who met her end at the hands of her ex, who she appeared on the show with. Springer does show a callous and dismissive side when asked if he remembers her. In the end, he is left to ponder that he is ashamed of the mark he left on the cultural landscape, which seems fitting with his fundamental nature.
I never had any time for the show when it first aired, lamenting the trashy, low IQ nature of it, but I was interested in seeing this documentary, made long after it ended, a succinct two part piece that holds it up to a modern lens. ****
Jerry Springer had served as the Mayor of Cincinnati, but in the early 90's, when the chat show reigned supreme, and Oprah ruled the airwaves, he found himself presenting his own show in a daytime slot. The producers, and the public, found the format rather boring and indistinguishable from the many other chat shows doing the rounds at the time, until producer Richard Dominik, who'd worked on the zany National Enquirer publication, came in and completely transformed the style of the show, and it became renowned for its increasing outrageousness and depravity, setting it on a downward trend that left destruction in its wake.
The Jerry Springer Show now exists in something of a cultural vacuum, something those who remember it when it first came out can feel a weird kind of sentimentalism for, recalling firsthand the sensationalism and wackiness of the show when it first aired, but it now feels consigned to a dark, forgotten corner of the public consciousness, much like The Jeremy Kyle Show in the UK, and for much the same dark, sinister reasons. With Springer now dead, it feels like an equally tight lid has been shut on the affair.
The show was always renowned for its 'larger than life' approach to its guests and themes of the various shows, and leaving you wondering if any of these people could be real, and indeed, often it seems it wasn't. Much like the Kyle Show in the UK, we learn of how producers would often coach guests on what to say, how to say it and the trash talk their fellow guests had said. And like the Kyle show, the guests often weren't the best educated, and came from poorer, small American towns, and so even the trip to Chicago, where the show was filmed (where '...they'd see deep pan pizza for the first time') was in itself an experience.
Springer himself emerges as he always seemed, reserved and mild mannered, and more genuinely suited to the gentle nature of the original show when it began in 1991, before Dominik came along and transformed it into the 'freak show' it became, following a similar trajectory to how Vince McMahon transformed the wholesome nature of the WWE, but he did seem to quietly revel in the fame the show brought him, lapping up the trappings of the limelight, but all the time Dominik was always pulling the strings. All the wildness ran along, until there was a human cost in the shape of guest Nancy Campbell Penitz, who met her end at the hands of her ex, who she appeared on the show with. Springer does show a callous and dismissive side when asked if he remembers her. In the end, he is left to ponder that he is ashamed of the mark he left on the cultural landscape, which seems fitting with his fundamental nature.
I never had any time for the show when it first aired, lamenting the trashy, low IQ nature of it, but I was interested in seeing this documentary, made long after it ended, a succinct two part piece that holds it up to a modern lens. ****
STAR RATING: ***** Brilliant **** Very Good *** Okay ** Poor * Awful
Justin Kemp (Nicolas Hoult) is a recovering alcoholic, about to become a first time father with his partner, Allison (Zoey Deutch), who has been selected for jury service, in the case of James Michael Sythe (Gabriel Basso), who is accused of killing his girlfriend, with whom he was seen arguing with shortly before her death. But Justin is harbouring a guilty secret, in relation to the case, that prosecuting counsel Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette) is on to.
Clint Eastwood, it seems, is still going strong, or, at least, is still making films, with his legendary Malpaso production company, once again sitting in the director's seat. Juror #2, despite the lead presence of current hot property Nicolas Hoult, had only a fleeting run in theatres, the distributors obviously not completely convinced in a return on the budget at the big screen, and marking what could most probably be 94 year old Eastwood's final film. The result is an imperfect, but satisfying endeavour.
The plot is a high concept idea, that sounds like the sort of thing that would make a fitting paperback novel, but is actually an original screenplay from Jonathan Abrams, with an interesting supporting cast including Collette, J. K. Simmons as an obsessive, snoopy fellow juror, and Kiefer Sutherland. Eastwood's slow, considered direction is always a pleasing experience, especially in this flashy, frenetic modern world, and all the sadder to lose if this is his last film. And it is a perfectly fine mystery/moral conundrum drama, save for some improbable plot turns and blurry narrative.
An Eastwood film always a unique and pleasing experience in its own way, and Juror #2 is an interesting and thought provoking feature, with strong performances, just not entirely the sum of its parts. ***
Justin Kemp (Nicolas Hoult) is a recovering alcoholic, about to become a first time father with his partner, Allison (Zoey Deutch), who has been selected for jury service, in the case of James Michael Sythe (Gabriel Basso), who is accused of killing his girlfriend, with whom he was seen arguing with shortly before her death. But Justin is harbouring a guilty secret, in relation to the case, that prosecuting counsel Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette) is on to.
Clint Eastwood, it seems, is still going strong, or, at least, is still making films, with his legendary Malpaso production company, once again sitting in the director's seat. Juror #2, despite the lead presence of current hot property Nicolas Hoult, had only a fleeting run in theatres, the distributors obviously not completely convinced in a return on the budget at the big screen, and marking what could most probably be 94 year old Eastwood's final film. The result is an imperfect, but satisfying endeavour.
The plot is a high concept idea, that sounds like the sort of thing that would make a fitting paperback novel, but is actually an original screenplay from Jonathan Abrams, with an interesting supporting cast including Collette, J. K. Simmons as an obsessive, snoopy fellow juror, and Kiefer Sutherland. Eastwood's slow, considered direction is always a pleasing experience, especially in this flashy, frenetic modern world, and all the sadder to lose if this is his last film. And it is a perfectly fine mystery/moral conundrum drama, save for some improbable plot turns and blurry narrative.
An Eastwood film always a unique and pleasing experience in its own way, and Juror #2 is an interesting and thought provoking feature, with strong performances, just not entirely the sum of its parts. ***