p_adkins2004
Joined Nov 2004
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.
Reviews19
p_adkins2004's rating
I've seen this film before but was looking through my DVD collection to find a film my kid brother could watch with me, without it being a kids film or a comedy. And I found this. In fact, I think M. Night Shyamalan are great for films to watch with people of all ages, as although they explore fairly gritty and dark ideas they are fairly family friendly.
On second viewing, I liked this film about as much I did the first time round - I like it, but it holds itself back. A lot.
Firstly, the setup is ridiculous, as a 'comic book' film set in reality the concept of Bruce Willis's invincible character seems a little too far fetched to ever be used a relatable figure to the audience, through whom the audience's perceptions are questioned. Unlike Night's other films where the hero's tend to be everyday sorta people (such as Gibson in Signs), Willis is a character totally out of place in the viewer's universe.
The climax of the film is under-developed, with the kidnap plot thrown into the film far too late, and so as the 'actiony' finale lacks any really weight or significance which it craves.
However, this film is not all about special powers or Willis's character, if you look carefully it's a film about perception. Using the directive (is that a word? I doubt it) masterfully, Night subtly sprinkles the film with ideas and shots in which the viewer's perception is brought into play. For example in the final scene of reconciliation between Willis and his wife, their son is shown in full shot filling a glass up midway of of orange juice, the camera then focuses in on this glass next to the newspaper with Willis on the headline, a metaphor surely for the films objective of asking is the glass ever really half empty? This is further emphasised by the decent twist (c'mon on its a Night film, of course it has a twist), in which the viewer is left wondering whether the set villain is actually the hero of the film.
I like this film, mainly due to it's direction and thought provoking message, however as a blockbuster or an entertainment flick I can understand why people think it doesn't stand-up compared to the rest of the blockbusters filling up the local odeons.
On second viewing, I liked this film about as much I did the first time round - I like it, but it holds itself back. A lot.
Firstly, the setup is ridiculous, as a 'comic book' film set in reality the concept of Bruce Willis's invincible character seems a little too far fetched to ever be used a relatable figure to the audience, through whom the audience's perceptions are questioned. Unlike Night's other films where the hero's tend to be everyday sorta people (such as Gibson in Signs), Willis is a character totally out of place in the viewer's universe.
The climax of the film is under-developed, with the kidnap plot thrown into the film far too late, and so as the 'actiony' finale lacks any really weight or significance which it craves.
However, this film is not all about special powers or Willis's character, if you look carefully it's a film about perception. Using the directive (is that a word? I doubt it) masterfully, Night subtly sprinkles the film with ideas and shots in which the viewer's perception is brought into play. For example in the final scene of reconciliation between Willis and his wife, their son is shown in full shot filling a glass up midway of of orange juice, the camera then focuses in on this glass next to the newspaper with Willis on the headline, a metaphor surely for the films objective of asking is the glass ever really half empty? This is further emphasised by the decent twist (c'mon on its a Night film, of course it has a twist), in which the viewer is left wondering whether the set villain is actually the hero of the film.
I like this film, mainly due to it's direction and thought provoking message, however as a blockbuster or an entertainment flick I can understand why people think it doesn't stand-up compared to the rest of the blockbusters filling up the local odeons.
A British gangster flick with heaps of style, but unlike many obvious comparisons with the likes of Lock, Stock and Layer Cake, this film has got much more substance.
Ray Winstone is retired gangster Gal Dove, living a new life of peace in Spain with his loved wife and close friends. However, a very unpleasant visit from Don Logan (Ben Kingsley) drags him back into the dark underworld of violence and bank robbery.
Ask anyone, and they will tell you the best thing about the film is its three leading stars, Ian McShane, Ben Kingsley and Winstone, who are cracking in the roles and the relationships between the character.
My only concern is that the second half of the flick pans out like you pretty much expect in the linear well known gangster format with the 'job' taking the role of the film's climax. And despite being done well, and having a few twists, it is heavily over-shadowed by the psychological, tension-packed first half in Spain - with the relationship between Gal and Don being the best thing the film has to offer.
A decent British gangster flick...set in Spain. Well worth a watch due to some of its cracking factors, but you've probably already seen it.
Ray Winstone is retired gangster Gal Dove, living a new life of peace in Spain with his loved wife and close friends. However, a very unpleasant visit from Don Logan (Ben Kingsley) drags him back into the dark underworld of violence and bank robbery.
Ask anyone, and they will tell you the best thing about the film is its three leading stars, Ian McShane, Ben Kingsley and Winstone, who are cracking in the roles and the relationships between the character.
My only concern is that the second half of the flick pans out like you pretty much expect in the linear well known gangster format with the 'job' taking the role of the film's climax. And despite being done well, and having a few twists, it is heavily over-shadowed by the psychological, tension-packed first half in Spain - with the relationship between Gal and Don being the best thing the film has to offer.
A decent British gangster flick...set in Spain. Well worth a watch due to some of its cracking factors, but you've probably already seen it.
If you've ever seen 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' this probably isn't the version you've seen. Yes, it is directed by Hitchcock, but he remade it in the US many years later and the latter film is the more popular version these days.
This film, set in London, sees a husband and wife try to stop the assassination of a government official and rescue their daughter from the murderers responsible.
It's by no means he greatest achievement ever, and would struggle to keep a modern audience interested (apart from Hitchcock fans). Sure Peter Lorre is great as the mastermind villain, and the plot is intriguing and fast paced, but due to the lack of Hitchcock's famous fast cut, tense inducing directing it doesn't standout.
Still not a bad film but by a long-shot, just not one of Hitch's greatest.
This film, set in London, sees a husband and wife try to stop the assassination of a government official and rescue their daughter from the murderers responsible.
It's by no means he greatest achievement ever, and would struggle to keep a modern audience interested (apart from Hitchcock fans). Sure Peter Lorre is great as the mastermind villain, and the plot is intriguing and fast paced, but due to the lack of Hitchcock's famous fast cut, tense inducing directing it doesn't standout.
Still not a bad film but by a long-shot, just not one of Hitch's greatest.