Search
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Important Movie
Set in the 1970’s, the first black police officer on the Colorado Springs police force attempts to infiltrate the Klu Klux Klan by becoming one of them.
Acting: 10
I don’t know who I liked better throughout the movie, John David Washington as Ron Stallworth or Adam Driver playing Jewish cop Flip Zimmerman. Not only were they amazing individually, but they complimented each other with great chemistry on screen. Whatever emotion director Spike Lee was trying to make you feel was amplified in their joint scenes. Washington is charming, funny, and witty, all the things you want from a leading role. His heroic character is one of my favorites from the year.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The visuals are amazingly crisp, poignant for each scene. It transports you perfectly into the time period without feeling overdone. While the film is largely a comedy, it succeeds in spots by relying on tension and intense moments. Spike Lee has a way of capturing those moments with sheer perfection. It has an artsy feel to it, sometimes over the top, but never unrelatable. Relatable Art. I think that’s the best way to describe it.
Conflict: 10
Whether subtle or in your face, conflict comes in waves throughout BlackkKlansman. You keep waiting for bad things to happen and sometimes they do. When they don’t, you know it’s only a matter of time before things get harry again. There was never a point where I was bored in the movie. Even the planning scenes where they were trying to figure out just how to get a black man to infiltrate a white supremacist organization was fun to watch.
Genre: 10
One of the most important dramas of our generation. Period. Nothing else needs to be said here.
Memorability: 10
The story in and of itself brings an originality you won’t soon forget. On paper, it sounds absolutely nuts. Watching it unfold on the big screen is even more nuts. Even though it’s based on a true story, it’s still very much hard to believe. It’s powerful and real with solid messaging that translates to the now. Even the comedy in certain moments has a way of leaving a real impact.
Pace: 10
The film is long, but it’s a smooth long. The pacing feels like a brisk jog. You always know the direction you’re heading and it never feels like it has to cheat or take shortcuts to properly tell the story. Not boring in the least. Engaging and entertaining throughout.
Plot: 8
Again, much respect for an original story. My one gripe: I don’t think the love story was necessary. It didn’t really contribute to the movie as a whole. Everything outside of that was wonderful and beautifully done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Expected to like BlackkKlansman, but I fell in love with this movie. It tells a wonderful story that leaves you talking long after it’s over. I’ve said this already, but it bears repeating: This is one of the most important films of our generation. See it. Don’t think twice.
Acting: 10
I don’t know who I liked better throughout the movie, John David Washington as Ron Stallworth or Adam Driver playing Jewish cop Flip Zimmerman. Not only were they amazing individually, but they complimented each other with great chemistry on screen. Whatever emotion director Spike Lee was trying to make you feel was amplified in their joint scenes. Washington is charming, funny, and witty, all the things you want from a leading role. His heroic character is one of my favorites from the year.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The visuals are amazingly crisp, poignant for each scene. It transports you perfectly into the time period without feeling overdone. While the film is largely a comedy, it succeeds in spots by relying on tension and intense moments. Spike Lee has a way of capturing those moments with sheer perfection. It has an artsy feel to it, sometimes over the top, but never unrelatable. Relatable Art. I think that’s the best way to describe it.
Conflict: 10
Whether subtle or in your face, conflict comes in waves throughout BlackkKlansman. You keep waiting for bad things to happen and sometimes they do. When they don’t, you know it’s only a matter of time before things get harry again. There was never a point where I was bored in the movie. Even the planning scenes where they were trying to figure out just how to get a black man to infiltrate a white supremacist organization was fun to watch.
Genre: 10
One of the most important dramas of our generation. Period. Nothing else needs to be said here.
Memorability: 10
The story in and of itself brings an originality you won’t soon forget. On paper, it sounds absolutely nuts. Watching it unfold on the big screen is even more nuts. Even though it’s based on a true story, it’s still very much hard to believe. It’s powerful and real with solid messaging that translates to the now. Even the comedy in certain moments has a way of leaving a real impact.
Pace: 10
The film is long, but it’s a smooth long. The pacing feels like a brisk jog. You always know the direction you’re heading and it never feels like it has to cheat or take shortcuts to properly tell the story. Not boring in the least. Engaging and entertaining throughout.
Plot: 8
Again, much respect for an original story. My one gripe: I don’t think the love story was necessary. It didn’t really contribute to the movie as a whole. Everything outside of that was wonderful and beautifully done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Expected to like BlackkKlansman, but I fell in love with this movie. It tells a wonderful story that leaves you talking long after it’s over. I’ve said this already, but it bears repeating: This is one of the most important films of our generation. See it. Don’t think twice.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Midway (2019) in Movies
Aug 10, 2020
So bad...it's bad
There are times when you watch a film and you can just hear the conference room discussion that happened back at the studio before getting it green-lit...
Studio Flunky: "Remember the 1970's WWII flick MIDWAY starring Henry Fonda, Charlton Heston, Charles Coborn, Richard Mitchum and an All Star cast"?
Studio Head: "Yeah...I loved that flick..."
Studio Flunky: "We have a fairly weak script here that pretty much rips that off, but we have the Director of Independence Day ready to Direct, so we'd just need some strong actors and top notch special effects to pull it off".
Studio Head: " I love it. Just one thing..."
Studio Flunky: "What's that?"
Studio Head: "Cut the budget to about 1/10th of what you're asking for."
And that's the issue with the Roland Emrich 2019 version of MIDWAY...what the film lacks in script quality, it makes up with by casting weak actors and crossing them with cheap special effects.
Yeah...it doesn't work very well. No wonder it came and went pretty quickly in the theaters.
Patrick Wilson is the most successful in this film in his role as Intelligence Officer Edwin Layton who figures out what the Japanese are up to in the early days of World War II. He has some fun scenes with Brennan Brown as one of this "codebreakers" and his interactions with Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz are fun.
And...that's about it for the acting and interesting things in this film. Harrelson is wasted in his role (he clearly owed someone a favor to appear in what should be considered and extended cameo). Dennis Quaid overacts (as he is want to do) as "Bull" Halsey. Mandy Moore, Aaron Eckhart, Nick Jonas and Luke Evans bring no charisma to roles that were written with the hopes that an actor would bring charisma to them. They all bring "one dimension" and play the heck out of that singular character trait...but interesting characters that does not build.
And then there is the case of Ed Skrein (in the Charlton Heston role) as the "rogue fighter pilot, bucking the system, but learning through the course of this film that he would be more effective bringing his unique insights into the system than buck it". Skrein is my poster child for "warning...bad movie ahead." He has, in my opinion, "anti-charisma". He sucks a movie into his void and we, the audience, are stuck there with him. Of course, we spend most of the film with him...much to my chagrin.
At least, you say, today's special effects would rescue this film.
Nope...it looked like someone's kid slapped something together on his MAC. The depth of the EFX are slim, the color schemes don't seem to match and the actors didn't look at all like they were in the scene with the effects.
Nothing really works in this film. Avoid it at all costs. I can't even give you the "it's so bad it's good" line on this one.
It's so bad, it's bad.
Letter Grade "D"
2 Stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Studio Flunky: "Remember the 1970's WWII flick MIDWAY starring Henry Fonda, Charlton Heston, Charles Coborn, Richard Mitchum and an All Star cast"?
Studio Head: "Yeah...I loved that flick..."
Studio Flunky: "We have a fairly weak script here that pretty much rips that off, but we have the Director of Independence Day ready to Direct, so we'd just need some strong actors and top notch special effects to pull it off".
Studio Head: " I love it. Just one thing..."
Studio Flunky: "What's that?"
Studio Head: "Cut the budget to about 1/10th of what you're asking for."
And that's the issue with the Roland Emrich 2019 version of MIDWAY...what the film lacks in script quality, it makes up with by casting weak actors and crossing them with cheap special effects.
Yeah...it doesn't work very well. No wonder it came and went pretty quickly in the theaters.
Patrick Wilson is the most successful in this film in his role as Intelligence Officer Edwin Layton who figures out what the Japanese are up to in the early days of World War II. He has some fun scenes with Brennan Brown as one of this "codebreakers" and his interactions with Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz are fun.
And...that's about it for the acting and interesting things in this film. Harrelson is wasted in his role (he clearly owed someone a favor to appear in what should be considered and extended cameo). Dennis Quaid overacts (as he is want to do) as "Bull" Halsey. Mandy Moore, Aaron Eckhart, Nick Jonas and Luke Evans bring no charisma to roles that were written with the hopes that an actor would bring charisma to them. They all bring "one dimension" and play the heck out of that singular character trait...but interesting characters that does not build.
And then there is the case of Ed Skrein (in the Charlton Heston role) as the "rogue fighter pilot, bucking the system, but learning through the course of this film that he would be more effective bringing his unique insights into the system than buck it". Skrein is my poster child for "warning...bad movie ahead." He has, in my opinion, "anti-charisma". He sucks a movie into his void and we, the audience, are stuck there with him. Of course, we spend most of the film with him...much to my chagrin.
At least, you say, today's special effects would rescue this film.
Nope...it looked like someone's kid slapped something together on his MAC. The depth of the EFX are slim, the color schemes don't seem to match and the actors didn't look at all like they were in the scene with the effects.
Nothing really works in this film. Avoid it at all costs. I can't even give you the "it's so bad it's good" line on this one.
It's so bad, it's bad.
Letter Grade "D"
2 Stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”
…the lasting legacy of Peter Finch’s rants, which began with a breakdown and became the ratings winner in the 1970’s Network driven news media. This is of course, fiction but the commentary on the changing and more corporate driven American media industry of the the time is not without merit.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Music From Another World in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-53.png"/>;
Music From Another World is a powerful and emotional read, about fighting for freedom and acceptance and the amazing feeling when you finally find a crowd where you can really fit in!
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
It’s summer 1977 and closeted lesbian Tammy Larson can’t be herself anywhere. Not at her strict Christian high school. Not at her conservative Orange County church. And certainly not at home, where her ultra religious aunt relentlessly organizes anti gay political campaigns. Tammy’s only outlet is writing secret letters in her diary to gay civil rights activist Harvey Milk… until she has a real-life pen pal who changes everything.
Sharon Hawkins will bond with Tammy over punk music and carefully shared secrets, and soon their letters become the one place she can be honest. The rest of her life in San Francisco is full of lies. The kind she tells for others - like helping her gay brother hide the truth from their mom. But as anti gay fervor in America reaches a frightening new pitch, Sharon and Tammy must rely on their long-distance friendship to discover their deeply personal truths. What they’ll stand for…and who they’ll rise against.
<b><i>My Thoughts: </i></b>
From the very first moment I read the synopsis, I knew I needed to read this book. It seemed filled with 1970's spirit, the movement to be brave and honest. The discussions in this book are through the form of letters or diary entries, which I really enjoyed. This writing style helped me get through the book extremely quickly.
We get to meet the two girls, Tammy and Sharon, both very different, but both struggling with the same issues of being contained in a world where they cannot be themselves. And even though this particular book is about the LGBTQ+ community, I believe this issue also applies to anything else in life, where people feel like they cannot be who they really are. Sometimes it is religion, other times it is political opinions, it could even be different hobbies where the person feels needs to contain in themselves because of the fear they might be frowned upon or laughed at.
<b><i>It is amazing to see how the world has progressed over the years, where people start feeling like they can finally express who they really are. It is not yet ideal, but I have a good feeling we are getting there. There is also the very powerful force of the internet, the advantage people didn't have before, to find people across the globe that share the same beliefs and interests. </i></b>
Music From Another World really moved me, and it brought up various emotions. It talks about the struggles and the reprimands, but it also talks about real happiness and laughter. The amazing feeling when you finally find a crowd that accepts you and where you truly belong. I believe this is the first book with a plot that made me feel so happy, so sad and so angry at the same time.
Thank you to NetGalley and the HQ Team, for sending me an ARC copy of this book in exchange for an honest review!
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-53.png"/>;
Music From Another World is a powerful and emotional read, about fighting for freedom and acceptance and the amazing feeling when you finally find a crowd where you can really fit in!
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
It’s summer 1977 and closeted lesbian Tammy Larson can’t be herself anywhere. Not at her strict Christian high school. Not at her conservative Orange County church. And certainly not at home, where her ultra religious aunt relentlessly organizes anti gay political campaigns. Tammy’s only outlet is writing secret letters in her diary to gay civil rights activist Harvey Milk… until she has a real-life pen pal who changes everything.
Sharon Hawkins will bond with Tammy over punk music and carefully shared secrets, and soon their letters become the one place she can be honest. The rest of her life in San Francisco is full of lies. The kind she tells for others - like helping her gay brother hide the truth from their mom. But as anti gay fervor in America reaches a frightening new pitch, Sharon and Tammy must rely on their long-distance friendship to discover their deeply personal truths. What they’ll stand for…and who they’ll rise against.
<b><i>My Thoughts: </i></b>
From the very first moment I read the synopsis, I knew I needed to read this book. It seemed filled with 1970's spirit, the movement to be brave and honest. The discussions in this book are through the form of letters or diary entries, which I really enjoyed. This writing style helped me get through the book extremely quickly.
We get to meet the two girls, Tammy and Sharon, both very different, but both struggling with the same issues of being contained in a world where they cannot be themselves. And even though this particular book is about the LGBTQ+ community, I believe this issue also applies to anything else in life, where people feel like they cannot be who they really are. Sometimes it is religion, other times it is political opinions, it could even be different hobbies where the person feels needs to contain in themselves because of the fear they might be frowned upon or laughed at.
<b><i>It is amazing to see how the world has progressed over the years, where people start feeling like they can finally express who they really are. It is not yet ideal, but I have a good feeling we are getting there. There is also the very powerful force of the internet, the advantage people didn't have before, to find people across the globe that share the same beliefs and interests. </i></b>
Music From Another World really moved me, and it brought up various emotions. It talks about the struggles and the reprimands, but it also talks about real happiness and laughter. The amazing feeling when you finally find a crowd that accepts you and where you truly belong. I believe this is the first book with a plot that made me feel so happy, so sad and so angry at the same time.
Thank you to NetGalley and the HQ Team, for sending me an ARC copy of this book in exchange for an honest review!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Licorice Pizza (2021) in Movies
Mar 9, 2022
Disjointed
The films of Director Paul Thomas Anderson is a bit of an “acquired taste”, moviegoers generally fall into one of 2 camps. (1) those that LOVE what he does (and thinks he is one of the greatest Directors of All Time) and (2) those that don’t.
I thought I fell into the 2nd camp, but upon reviewing his portfolio of work for this review (HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD), I realized that I pretty much liked whatever he had done, but with his last few films (THE MASTER, INHERENT VICE, THE PHANTOM THREAD) I am finding that “PTA” (as his fans call him) is becoming just a little too “artsy” and pretentious for my tastes. He has fallen too in love with his material - and artistic style - to objectively look at a film and realize that it needs to move along at a brisker pace.
Such is the case with his latest film, LICORICE PIZZA.
A memory of his youth, LICORICE PIZZA follows the relationship of a pair of mismatched young adults as they work their way through the early 1970’s in search of themselves and love.
This film is a series of scenes stitched together to tell a story and the problem with it is that it made this film seem disjointed. The central “get together already” love story of the main 2 characters is supposed to be the through-line of the film, but when this through-line breaks (as it often does here) it is detrimental to the flow of the story.
Based, loosely, on the real-life exploits of PTA’s friend, Producer Gary Goetzman, LICORICE PIZZA stars Cooper Hoffman (son of Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as Gary Valentine and Alana Haim (of the Sister Act Musical Group HAIM) as Alana as they have an on-again/off-again friendship that SHOULD BE a romance, but isn’t (kind of like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY). They circumnavigate circa 1973 Los Angeles running into fictionalized portrayals of famous people like Producer Jon Peters (Bradley Cooper) and Film Actor Jack Holden (Sean Penn) an amalgamation of William Holden and Steve McQueen.
The central performances of Hoffman and Haim are competent enough, but never rises to anything more than that, which pulls this film down for one or the other of them is in every scene . The various actors doing extended cameos (like Cooper and Penn) seem to be having fun chewing up the scenery, but they are acting in a completely different style of film than Hoffman and Haim are and our 2 leads don’t stand a chance of standing out compared to these over-the-top performances.
Blame for all of this needs to be laid on Anderson (Oscar Nominated for his Direction in this film). He tried to give us a “slice of life” nostalgia piece like AMERICAN GRAFFITI or ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, but he just doesn’t pull it off.
An Oscar Nominee for Best Picture, LICORICE PIZZA seems to be riding the wave of nostalgia both for the times depicted - and the artist who put this film on the screen - but it just isn’t that good of a film.
Letter Grade B- (for Cooper’s and Penn’s scenes in this)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I thought I fell into the 2nd camp, but upon reviewing his portfolio of work for this review (HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD), I realized that I pretty much liked whatever he had done, but with his last few films (THE MASTER, INHERENT VICE, THE PHANTOM THREAD) I am finding that “PTA” (as his fans call him) is becoming just a little too “artsy” and pretentious for my tastes. He has fallen too in love with his material - and artistic style - to objectively look at a film and realize that it needs to move along at a brisker pace.
Such is the case with his latest film, LICORICE PIZZA.
A memory of his youth, LICORICE PIZZA follows the relationship of a pair of mismatched young adults as they work their way through the early 1970’s in search of themselves and love.
This film is a series of scenes stitched together to tell a story and the problem with it is that it made this film seem disjointed. The central “get together already” love story of the main 2 characters is supposed to be the through-line of the film, but when this through-line breaks (as it often does here) it is detrimental to the flow of the story.
Based, loosely, on the real-life exploits of PTA’s friend, Producer Gary Goetzman, LICORICE PIZZA stars Cooper Hoffman (son of Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as Gary Valentine and Alana Haim (of the Sister Act Musical Group HAIM) as Alana as they have an on-again/off-again friendship that SHOULD BE a romance, but isn’t (kind of like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY). They circumnavigate circa 1973 Los Angeles running into fictionalized portrayals of famous people like Producer Jon Peters (Bradley Cooper) and Film Actor Jack Holden (Sean Penn) an amalgamation of William Holden and Steve McQueen.
The central performances of Hoffman and Haim are competent enough, but never rises to anything more than that, which pulls this film down for one or the other of them is in every scene . The various actors doing extended cameos (like Cooper and Penn) seem to be having fun chewing up the scenery, but they are acting in a completely different style of film than Hoffman and Haim are and our 2 leads don’t stand a chance of standing out compared to these over-the-top performances.
Blame for all of this needs to be laid on Anderson (Oscar Nominated for his Direction in this film). He tried to give us a “slice of life” nostalgia piece like AMERICAN GRAFFITI or ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, but he just doesn’t pull it off.
An Oscar Nominee for Best Picture, LICORICE PIZZA seems to be riding the wave of nostalgia both for the times depicted - and the artist who put this film on the screen - but it just isn’t that good of a film.
Letter Grade B- (for Cooper’s and Penn’s scenes in this)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Strong Lead Performance
I have to admit, I thought the Freddy Mercury bio-pic BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was just "meh" and that Rami Malek was "just o'k" as the Queen frontman (personally, I would have given the Oscar to Christian Bale for his portrayal of Dick Cheney in VICE) so I was not rushing to the multi-plex to check out the Elton John musical film ROCKETMAN. And the fact that the release of this film was "buried" in the summer and not right before "Oscar Season" gave me room to pause.
And...I would be wrong...for ROCKETMAN is a fun, fantastical fantasy musical depicting the rise and fall (by drug and alcohol abuse) of one of rock's most flamboyant showman of the 1970's.
Following the "Jukebox Musical" blueprint of something like JERSEY BOYS, Rocketman follows a young Reggie Dwight as he discovers his musical talent and grows into the Global Superstar known as Elton John.
I was happy that the filmmakers went this route (vs the bio-pic route that BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY went) for they were able to use the vast catalog of Elton John/Bernie Taupin tunes to their fullest advantage, when it made sense to drive the narrative forward - or to give the storytelling a shot of adrenaline.
This film had Elton John's blessings and he was not kind to a few people in his life - most notably his mother (an almost unrecognizable Bryce Dallas Howard in a strong turn), his father (Steve Mackintosh, who I had never seen before) and his Manager, John Reid (Game of Throne's Richard Madden). All 3 are pretty one-dimensional villains that help contribute to Elton's drug and alcohol abuse.
On the other side of the coin is his writing partner, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell, the original BILLY ELLIOT in a performance that I think is the best of his career) and his Grandmother, Ivy (good ol' Gemma Jones BRIDGET JONES DIARY and Madam Pomfrey in the Harry Potter films). Both of these characters are generally positive influences on Elton's life, trying to understand and support our hero on his journey.
As for our hero, Taran Egerton (the KINGSMAN films) embodies Elton with panache and zeal while showing an underlying shyness and insecurity that helps lead to his abuse issues. Egerton is EXCELLENT in this role - both in acting and singing. He doesn't so much imitate Elton John but embodies the essence of Sir Elton and his performance is quite effective. If Rami Malek deserved his Oscar for playing Freddy Mercury in BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY then Taran Egerton better be in the Oscar conversation this year.
The film was Directed by Dexter Fletcher (who was brought on to finish BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY once Bryan Singer was fired from that film for his on-set behavior), so he puts to good use his experience on the Queen movie, keeping the action moving fast, the characterizations simple (but satisfying) enough while showcasing just enough music to fill a "Best of" Album.
While BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was a "meh" movie with a buffo ending (the recreation of the LIVE AID concert was amazing), ROCKETMAN suffers from just the opposite problem. Starting off strong and growing weaker until it ends in "meh" fashion. The fact that this film musical fantasy decided to end with a faithful recreation of the I'M STILL STANDING music video is at the heart of the issue. I understand the implied underlying meaning of this song selection, but it just doesn't pack the punch that a live concert appearance would have.
Come for the music, stay for Egerton's performance and you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I would be wrong...for ROCKETMAN is a fun, fantastical fantasy musical depicting the rise and fall (by drug and alcohol abuse) of one of rock's most flamboyant showman of the 1970's.
Following the "Jukebox Musical" blueprint of something like JERSEY BOYS, Rocketman follows a young Reggie Dwight as he discovers his musical talent and grows into the Global Superstar known as Elton John.
I was happy that the filmmakers went this route (vs the bio-pic route that BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY went) for they were able to use the vast catalog of Elton John/Bernie Taupin tunes to their fullest advantage, when it made sense to drive the narrative forward - or to give the storytelling a shot of adrenaline.
This film had Elton John's blessings and he was not kind to a few people in his life - most notably his mother (an almost unrecognizable Bryce Dallas Howard in a strong turn), his father (Steve Mackintosh, who I had never seen before) and his Manager, John Reid (Game of Throne's Richard Madden). All 3 are pretty one-dimensional villains that help contribute to Elton's drug and alcohol abuse.
On the other side of the coin is his writing partner, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell, the original BILLY ELLIOT in a performance that I think is the best of his career) and his Grandmother, Ivy (good ol' Gemma Jones BRIDGET JONES DIARY and Madam Pomfrey in the Harry Potter films). Both of these characters are generally positive influences on Elton's life, trying to understand and support our hero on his journey.
As for our hero, Taran Egerton (the KINGSMAN films) embodies Elton with panache and zeal while showing an underlying shyness and insecurity that helps lead to his abuse issues. Egerton is EXCELLENT in this role - both in acting and singing. He doesn't so much imitate Elton John but embodies the essence of Sir Elton and his performance is quite effective. If Rami Malek deserved his Oscar for playing Freddy Mercury in BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY then Taran Egerton better be in the Oscar conversation this year.
The film was Directed by Dexter Fletcher (who was brought on to finish BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY once Bryan Singer was fired from that film for his on-set behavior), so he puts to good use his experience on the Queen movie, keeping the action moving fast, the characterizations simple (but satisfying) enough while showcasing just enough music to fill a "Best of" Album.
While BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was a "meh" movie with a buffo ending (the recreation of the LIVE AID concert was amazing), ROCKETMAN suffers from just the opposite problem. Starting off strong and growing weaker until it ends in "meh" fashion. The fact that this film musical fantasy decided to end with a faithful recreation of the I'M STILL STANDING music video is at the heart of the issue. I understand the implied underlying meaning of this song selection, but it just doesn't pack the punch that a live concert appearance would have.
Come for the music, stay for Egerton's performance and you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Jan 16, 2019
A lush and beautiful memory
Alfonso Cuaron - the magnificent Director from Mexico who directed such big Hollywood hits as HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (the best HP flick, IMHO) and GRAVITY (one of the best films of 2013, IMHO) has made a little "personal" film that was financed and released by Netflix. Netflix, in their wisdom, realized they might have an Oscar contender on it's hands, so has released ROMA in limited release to Theaters (mostly Art Houses) and...in some instances...you can catch a 70mm print of this film. Or...you can watch it on your TV via your Netflix subscription.
I would highly recommend checking this film out at your local movie theater house and, if you are lucky enough to have a theater that is showing the 70mm print, I would tell you to run...don't walk...to check this out.
For ROMA is a beautifully filmed Black and White film, in Spanish (with English subtitles) that tells a very personal story of a family in Mexico City in the early 1970's - as seen through the eyes of their house maid. This story is based (according to what I have read) on Cuaron's own childhood and he has lovingly, beautifully recreated this world and populated it with some interesting characters/experiences.
It is also languidly paced (read: slow) and - if I am honest about it - not much happens. So if you add languid pace with black and white photography with Spanish language (and English subtitles) with not much in the way of plot or action, your attention span will be stretched and, I'm afraid, if you're home, you will be tempted to be distracted by your phone, the dog, the dishes, a magazine, etc...
And that would be a shame, for I fell in love with this film, the beauty of the cinematography and the slow pace of it all and I think you will too if you give it a chance.
Cuaron, most certainly, will be nominated for an Oscar for his writing and directing of this piece - and I am sure that this film will be nominated for Best Picture (and deservedly so), but it is in two other places that I was entranced by ROMA. I have mentioned the first - the Cinematography. This film is a shoo-in for a Best Cinematography Oscar, the black and white is lush and rich throughout the film and adds to the memory-style idealized world that Cuaron has put on screen. So, the Best Cinematography Oscar should go to...Alfonso Cuaron.
The other area that I am surprised to say worked very well for me is the performances of the cast, all Mexican actors, unknown to U.S. audiences. Standing out most notably are Marina de Tavira as the matriarch of the family, Senora Sofia and, most surprisingly, Yalitza Aparicio as the focal point of this film, Cleo. Her part is mostly mute (or at least mute for me, for I don't speak Spanish) so the emotions I felt coming from her were brought forth through her facial features, looks and reactions, much more than what she says. I would be fine with either of these two getting an Oscar nomination.
Despite a slow start - and a slow pace throughout this film - and not much going on, I was entranced and enthralled by the world that Cuaron put on screen. A world that exists, mostly, in Cuaron's memory and that, now, exists for us to see in this wonderful film.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I would highly recommend checking this film out at your local movie theater house and, if you are lucky enough to have a theater that is showing the 70mm print, I would tell you to run...don't walk...to check this out.
For ROMA is a beautifully filmed Black and White film, in Spanish (with English subtitles) that tells a very personal story of a family in Mexico City in the early 1970's - as seen through the eyes of their house maid. This story is based (according to what I have read) on Cuaron's own childhood and he has lovingly, beautifully recreated this world and populated it with some interesting characters/experiences.
It is also languidly paced (read: slow) and - if I am honest about it - not much happens. So if you add languid pace with black and white photography with Spanish language (and English subtitles) with not much in the way of plot or action, your attention span will be stretched and, I'm afraid, if you're home, you will be tempted to be distracted by your phone, the dog, the dishes, a magazine, etc...
And that would be a shame, for I fell in love with this film, the beauty of the cinematography and the slow pace of it all and I think you will too if you give it a chance.
Cuaron, most certainly, will be nominated for an Oscar for his writing and directing of this piece - and I am sure that this film will be nominated for Best Picture (and deservedly so), but it is in two other places that I was entranced by ROMA. I have mentioned the first - the Cinematography. This film is a shoo-in for a Best Cinematography Oscar, the black and white is lush and rich throughout the film and adds to the memory-style idealized world that Cuaron has put on screen. So, the Best Cinematography Oscar should go to...Alfonso Cuaron.
The other area that I am surprised to say worked very well for me is the performances of the cast, all Mexican actors, unknown to U.S. audiences. Standing out most notably are Marina de Tavira as the matriarch of the family, Senora Sofia and, most surprisingly, Yalitza Aparicio as the focal point of this film, Cleo. Her part is mostly mute (or at least mute for me, for I don't speak Spanish) so the emotions I felt coming from her were brought forth through her facial features, looks and reactions, much more than what she says. I would be fine with either of these two getting an Oscar nomination.
Despite a slow start - and a slow pace throughout this film - and not much going on, I was entranced and enthralled by the world that Cuaron put on screen. A world that exists, mostly, in Cuaron's memory and that, now, exists for us to see in this wonderful film.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated I, Robot (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Tales of a dark and foreboding future where technology has run amuck have been cautioning viewers ever since Orwell made the phrase “Big Brother” a household expression. Other films such as ?”, “Westworld”, “Blade Runner” and “The Terminator” often show a dark and dangerous future where dependence upon technology created to serve mankind has lead to its eventual downfall.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.