Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wordy but entertaining.
You can never accuse Aaron Sorkin of skimping on his words. Sorkin is of course the award-winning writer of “The West Wing” but on the big screen he has also written many classics: “A Few Good Men”; “The Social Network” and “Steve Jobs” for example. Here he also makes his directorial debut in a movie about the true-life turbulent career of Olympic wannabe skier Molly Bloom.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated BEING THE RICARDOS (2021) in Movies
Jan 14, 2022
Superb "A" plot, Boring "B" plot
When I first heard that Nicole Kidman (of all people) was set to play Lucille Ball in a bio-pic (of sorts), I was suspect over the casting.
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darned if she doesn’t pull it off.
Written and Directed by Aaron Sorkin, BEING THE RICARDOS isn’t, exactly, a bio-pic of Lucy, but rather it tells the tale of a pivotal week in the life of Lucy and her husband Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem) as Lucy deals with infidelity issues with Desi and accusations of being a Communist from the House UnAmerican activities committee all while trying to put on her weekly TV show. Oh…and it also shows, in flashback, Lucy and Desi’s courtship.
This is a lot to pack-in in one film and this movie almost manages to do it well.
Let’s start with the performances. Kidman is excellent as Lucy - especially as she recreates the Lucille Ball we know on-screen. She has the pattern and physicality of the TV star down and recreates Lucy’s TV personae well. Kidman also digs deeply into her considerable acting talent to pull out the “business” Lucy, showing a determined woman driving her way through a “man’s world”.
JK Simmons is brilliant, as always, as William Frawley (who played Fred Mertz in I LOVE LUCY). Sorkin has written Frawley as the “all knowing” mystic of the piece, hanging into the background, but coming to fore when one of the principal characters needs a bit of sage advice. It’s an old trope, but Simmons pulls it off well.
Unfortunately, the Desi Arnaz and Vivian Vance (who played Ethel) character’s are underwritten by Sorkin. Nina Arianda is well cast as Ethel, but she just doesn’t have much to do (besides being a foil for Lucy - which was what Vance was for many, many years). I’d love to see a version of this film where Arianda is giving something more meaty, I think she’d tear into it.
And then there is Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz. It is an underwritten part and Bardem plays the surface of this character and just doesn’t get “deep enough” into the soul of this man, so Desi really ended up a throw away character in this.
It was good to see, however, some “veteran” performers (Linda Lavin, Ronny Cox and John Rubenstein) playing older versions of characters involved in the activities in this film, reminiscing (and commenting on) the events. It was a nice framing touch and added some depth to the film.
The praise for the good parts of this film (and there are plenty) and the blame for the bad (boring/underwritten) parts of this film (and there are plenty) all lie at the feet of Writer/Director Sorkin. It is as if he had a really good idea (showing Lucy under pressure by the House Un-American Committee while battling the Corporate Suits - and Directors/Writers/Producers who are not as in touch with Lucy’s Comedy as she is - while trying to put on a weekly show), but it wasn’t quite enough to fill a complete movie, so he added a “B” plot of Desi’s philandering (which is true to what really occurred) and flashbacks to how they met.
The first part works very well (clearly, this was the part that Sorkin was interested in) while the 2nd part feels “put on” (Sorkin “banging it out” to fill the film).
This film is worth watching, I just wish there was more “A” plot and less “B” plot.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Simply Stunning
The king of the Kaiju, Godzilla, has had a very chequered cinematic history. From the classic original Japanese films to Roland Emmerich’s 1998 disaster, the famous beast hasn’t always been given the respect deserved of such an iconic monster.
Now, 16 years after Emmerich’s critical flop, Monsters director Gareth Edwards resurrects the gargantuan reptile in this year’s reboot, simply titled Godzilla, but is it a return to form?
Yes, is the short answer. From an engaging story to a stellar cast, Edwards recreates the fan favourite with the utmost care and attention, and comes out smelling of roses.
Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) stars as Joe Brody, an American nuclear power officer living and working in Japan with his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche) and their son Ford,bryan-cranston-fans-will-be-disappointed-with-godzilla just as a nuclear disaster begins. Fast-forward 15 years and a disheveled Joe is trying to find the truth about what happened at the nuclear plant, believing the authorities are trying to hide something from the general public. As his descent into madness continues, a fully grown Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson decides to come to his aid.
What ensues is a great story of father bonding with son as they try to work out exactly what is going on together. Though what they find shocks the globe.
Within the first hour of Godzilla, the titular monster’s appearances are limited to shots of spines poking from the ocean, keeping the audience guessing as to how the creature has been designed by Edwards and his team.
This can become increasingly tiresome as we make do with the film’s primary antagonists MUTO, and as impressive as they are to look at, all we really want to see is Godzilla in all his glory. Though Edwards’ constant teasers are brilliantly varied.
Thankfully after numerous jaw-dropping set pieces ranging from a Japanese nuclear plant to a Hawaiian airport, Godzilla is finally revealed and the result is exceptional.
Gone is the T-Rex on steroids look that Emmerich shoved down our throats in the 1998 monstrosity and in its place is how the beast used to look in the original foreign classics – of course with revolutionary special effects to keep things looking tip-top.
The CGI, of which there is a huge amount, is breath-taking. Godzilla, the MUTO and all of the set pieces are of the highest quality, with no visible lapses whatsoever, and what Edwards does that so many other directors don’t is to keep the story going instead of letting the CGI take over, it never becomes overly loud and obnoxious.
One scene in particular, involving a group of paratroopers infiltrating a desolate San Francisco as Godzilla and the MUTO do battle is probably one of the most beautifully shot and eerily quiet action sequences in cinematic history with one section involving some perfectly positioned Chinese lanterns being the highlight.
A really enjoyable aspect of the film is spotting the homages to previous Godzilla films as well as other monster classics like Jurassic Park. There are many scattered throughout the film.
Moreover, the acting is generally very good. Cranston is sublime and shows what a brilliant actor he is. The character of Joe is the one you care about the most throughout the film. Taylor-Johnson is good, if a little staid as the generic armed forces stereotype.
Elizabeth Olsen, David Strathairn and Sally Hawkins also star. Unfortunately, a weak link is Ken Watanabe who plays Dr Ishiro Serizawa. His over-the-top and hammy performance begins to grate after an hour of seeing him on screen.
Thankfully though, Godzilla’s inevitable weak points are far outshone by the incredible special effects, interesting story and excellent acting. Bryan Cranston is a real highlight and the beast himself is a wonder to behold.
Gareth Edwards has not only created one of the best monster films ever with some of the most breath-taking shots ever seen on celluloid, he has also whet our appetites for Colin Trevorrow’s Jurassic World set to be released in June next year – that can only be a good thing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/20/godzilla-review/
Now, 16 years after Emmerich’s critical flop, Monsters director Gareth Edwards resurrects the gargantuan reptile in this year’s reboot, simply titled Godzilla, but is it a return to form?
Yes, is the short answer. From an engaging story to a stellar cast, Edwards recreates the fan favourite with the utmost care and attention, and comes out smelling of roses.
Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) stars as Joe Brody, an American nuclear power officer living and working in Japan with his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche) and their son Ford,bryan-cranston-fans-will-be-disappointed-with-godzilla just as a nuclear disaster begins. Fast-forward 15 years and a disheveled Joe is trying to find the truth about what happened at the nuclear plant, believing the authorities are trying to hide something from the general public. As his descent into madness continues, a fully grown Ford, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson decides to come to his aid.
What ensues is a great story of father bonding with son as they try to work out exactly what is going on together. Though what they find shocks the globe.
Within the first hour of Godzilla, the titular monster’s appearances are limited to shots of spines poking from the ocean, keeping the audience guessing as to how the creature has been designed by Edwards and his team.
This can become increasingly tiresome as we make do with the film’s primary antagonists MUTO, and as impressive as they are to look at, all we really want to see is Godzilla in all his glory. Though Edwards’ constant teasers are brilliantly varied.
Thankfully after numerous jaw-dropping set pieces ranging from a Japanese nuclear plant to a Hawaiian airport, Godzilla is finally revealed and the result is exceptional.
Gone is the T-Rex on steroids look that Emmerich shoved down our throats in the 1998 monstrosity and in its place is how the beast used to look in the original foreign classics – of course with revolutionary special effects to keep things looking tip-top.
The CGI, of which there is a huge amount, is breath-taking. Godzilla, the MUTO and all of the set pieces are of the highest quality, with no visible lapses whatsoever, and what Edwards does that so many other directors don’t is to keep the story going instead of letting the CGI take over, it never becomes overly loud and obnoxious.
One scene in particular, involving a group of paratroopers infiltrating a desolate San Francisco as Godzilla and the MUTO do battle is probably one of the most beautifully shot and eerily quiet action sequences in cinematic history with one section involving some perfectly positioned Chinese lanterns being the highlight.
A really enjoyable aspect of the film is spotting the homages to previous Godzilla films as well as other monster classics like Jurassic Park. There are many scattered throughout the film.
Moreover, the acting is generally very good. Cranston is sublime and shows what a brilliant actor he is. The character of Joe is the one you care about the most throughout the film. Taylor-Johnson is good, if a little staid as the generic armed forces stereotype.
Elizabeth Olsen, David Strathairn and Sally Hawkins also star. Unfortunately, a weak link is Ken Watanabe who plays Dr Ishiro Serizawa. His over-the-top and hammy performance begins to grate after an hour of seeing him on screen.
Thankfully though, Godzilla’s inevitable weak points are far outshone by the incredible special effects, interesting story and excellent acting. Bryan Cranston is a real highlight and the beast himself is a wonder to behold.
Gareth Edwards has not only created one of the best monster films ever with some of the most breath-taking shots ever seen on celluloid, he has also whet our appetites for Colin Trevorrow’s Jurassic World set to be released in June next year – that can only be a good thing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/20/godzilla-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mitchells vs The Machines (2021) in Movies
May 16, 2021
Brilliantly original animation (1 more)
Fantastic laugh-out-loud gags throughout, many with a movie nerd bias
Dog-Pig-Dog-Pig-Loaf of Bread… KERBOOM!
Katie Mitchell (voiced by Abbi Jacobson) dreams of being a great film director (joining her icons on her version of Mount Rushmore!). She's about to travel to a west-coast film college when her dad Rick (Danny Mcbride) decides to cancel her air ticket and try to re-engage with her through one last epic road trip. Together with wife Linda (Maya Rudolph), dinosaur-mad son Aaron (director Michael Rianda) and cross-eyed pug Monchi (Doug the Pug!) they set off on their journey.
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
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.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“He’s waited for me; I’ve waited for him”.
A blood-soaked history.
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
There’s such a familiarity with the content of these films that it’s difficult to put yourself back in 1978 for Jamie Lee Curtis‘s original battle with Michael Myers when the teen-slasher genre was in its infancy. Arguably “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” four years earlier booted the 70’s/80’s genre; but thanks to its huge success John Carpenter’s “Halloween” opened the flood-gates… or should I say, blood-gates.
The plot.
40 years after the terrifying events of Halloween night in Haddonfield, Illinois, Michael Myers is still mute and incarcerated in a psychiatric unit being studied by Dr Sartain (Haluk Bilginer). He is joined by two investigative journalists – Aaron Korey (Jefferson Hall) and Dana Haines (Basingstoke’s-own Rhian Rees: “Where are your loos?”… classic!). They are keen to reunite Myers with his nemesis Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to watch the fireworks.
Strode is unfortunately damaged goods: still mentally traumatised and with failed marriages and a child taken into care, she lives in a fortified home in the middle of the woods. But she knows she has a date with destiny. As Halloween 2018 approaches, an ‘incident’ puts Myers on a collision course with Haddonfield’s teenage population all over again.
The turns.
Wow… you forget what an effective actress Jamie Lee Curtis is and here she absolutely owns every single scene she’s in, bringing enormous energy to the screen as the paranoid but ever-prepared hunter-in-waiting. The original Halloween was Lee Curtis’s movie debut and the film that made her a household name, and it almost feels like this is a passion-project for her to say “thanks for all the fish” for her career. Impressive.
As her eye-rolling daughter, Judy Greer rather pales in comparison (I found her character is a bit whiny and annoying), but the acting stakes pick up again with Andi Matichak as the granddaughter Allyson.
Of the other teens, Virginia Gardner is particularly effective as Vicky: the cute “favourite” babysitter who you can’t help but empathise with.
The review.
It’s very easy to make a very bad slasher movie, but this isn’t such a movie. Although having a wonderfully retro feel (when is the last time you saw “traditional” opening titles like this?) and despite mining every horror cliché known to man (ALWAYS look in the back seat when you get in a car!) it’s all obviously been done with loving care by the director David Gordon Green.
Above all, the director knows that what’s more scary than seeing violent murders is what your imagination can visualise happening off-screen. Don’t get me wrong, there is some SERIOUS gore meted out, with a few ‘cover your eyes’ moments. However, a good proportion of the violence is not shown, and very effective that is too, supported by Carpenter’s classic and insistent theme and some kick-ass foley work to add spice to your imagination!
The script (by the writing team of David Gordon Green, Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley) also wickedly plays with your darkest fear of where the plot *could* go if it wanted to: in a brilliant piece of misdirection (you’ll know the scene) your “OMG surely not” nerves twang and then un-twang with relief.
The script also works well to help you care about the teens on the menu, in much the same way as “Jaws” did with the tourists to Amity Beach.
Where the plot nearly lost me was in a rather daft twist before the final reel (which actually made more sense of what happened in the first reel, but was still hugely improbable). The ship rights itself fairly quickly (if messily) and normal order is resumed for the finale it deserves.
Final thoughts.
I’m not really a “horror nut” but this was popcorn horror of the best sort and I enjoyed it. Reverential to the original classic, it made for some entertaining reactions in the sparsely populated showing I attended: I imagine if seen in a packed auditorium on a Saturday night (or perhaps tomorrow night!) it would literally be a scream.
One’s thing for sure: when I got into my car in the dark cinema car park, I did take a sneaky look into the back seat!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the crisis into mid-life crisis.
“Do you think your life has turned into something you never intended?” So asks Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) to her young assistant, who obviously looks baffled. “Of course, not – you’re still young”. Susan is in a mid-life crisis. While successful within the opulent Los Angeles art scene her personal life is crashing to the ground around her: her marriage (to Hutton (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) ) appears to be cooling fast amid financial worries.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow – what a surprise.
Sometimes I can get very irritated by a trailer for giving too much away (case in point, “Room” – which I recut – and more recently “Passengers”). Sometimes I can get very excited by a really good teaser trailer (case in point, “10 Cloverfield Lane”). But most of the time a “ho hum” trailer typically drives the expectation of a “ho hum” film: “Jack Reacher: Never Look Back” being a good recent example. Then there is “Arrival”…
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 4, 2019 (Updated May 4, 2019)
Surprisingly Strong Chemistry Between The Leads
Quite a few people that I have spoken with don't like either Charlize Theron or Seth Rogan as performers, so the idea of a pairing of the straight-laced, uptight politician played by Theron and the shlubby, weed-smoking slacker played by Rogan was like "nails on a chalkboard" to them.
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And these people would be wrong, for LONG SHOT is a very entertaining, heartfelt romantic comedy that has one big surprise - the strong chemistry between the two leads.
Kind of the "anti-AMERICAN PRESIDENT" (the 1995 Michael Douglas/Annette Benning RomCom written by Aaron Sorkin), LONG SHOT tells the tale of Secretary of State, Charlotte Field (Theron) who embarks on a Presidential bid. When she polls low in "sense of humor" she decides to add a comedy writer to her staff to punch up her speeches. A chance encounter with her childhood next door neighbor leads Field to hire Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan). Will sparks fly? Can Fred remind Charlotte of why she chose politics in the first place?
What do you think? It's a RomCom afterall, but it's the journey and not the destination that is important.
And...his is a fun journey...mostly because of the performances of Theron and Rogan. Over the years, I have grown to really appreciate Theron - from dramas like NORTH COUNTRY and her Oscar-winning turn in MONSTER, to action flicks like MAD MAX:FURY ROAD and FATE OF THE FURIOUS, to comedies like A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST and this film - there is nothing (apparently) that she can't do. She is really good in all of these - even if the material is not the greatest.
The surprise to me here was the performance of Rogan - it was "wacky", "stoner-ish" and "out there", but toned down and tempered - probably the sign of a good, strong Director at the helm. I bought Flarsky's journey in this story and the relationship between these two characters was believable because Rogan was able to match Theron's energy and show real chemistry between the two.
Other fine turns are given by O'Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON), as Rogan's buddy, Ravi Patel (TV's MASTER OF NONE) as one of Theron's support staff and (especially) June Diane Rapheal (TV's GRACE AND FRANKIE) who really shines in the unenviable role of the Theron's Chief of Staff who doesn't approve of putting Rogan's character on the team, but she plays the role with layers - not one-note - and so we get a real person, with conflicted feelings at time, and she rises above the typical type of character in this type of role.
The only disappointment for me was Bob Odenkirk's President (who is stepping down for - he hopes - a much bigger job, MOVIE STAR) and not because of Odenkirk's performance, he was fine with what he was given, but there wasn't much nuance written in this part and (compared to the layers shown/written by others) the one-note-ness of Odenkirk's character was noticeable. As was Andy Serkis as a heavily-made up, older media mogul who is trying to use his wealth to manipulate the events from behind the scene - this character (and make-up) was a "swing and a miss" for me. But, fortunately, neither Serkis nor Odenkirk have much screen time, so it was more of a "distraction" than an "annoyance" for me.
I mention the Director - so I better give credit to Jonathan Levine (the awful SNATCHED with Amy Shumer and Goldie Hawn) - I have not really enjoyed anything else he has Directed, but I have to give him credit for this one - he brings "the funny and the crude" without going overboard, driving the story efficiently while putting in enough yuks and (surprisingly) heart in this movie along the way.
Now...don't be fooled here...there is quite a bit of "crude, lewd and rude" behavior and jokes (a crucial plot point hangs on a "sex act"), so don't expect a gentile, Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn battle of the sexes. Expect a funny (crude), sexy (lewd) and opinionated (rude) take on the modern political system and how a person can lose their soul if they choose to play the game.
With a large amount of heart - and strong performances/chemistry between the two leads - I was pleasantly surprised by LONG SHOT - and, if you can handle the crude, lude and rude, then you will have a good time at this film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Let The Dead Keep Their Secrets in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Let The DEAD Keep Their Secrets by Rosemary Simpson brings to life New York City during the 1880s in a historical mystery. It is rich in the culture of the time with a riveting Colombo type crime. Readers know who has done it and seek clues with the characters to find the proof.
The plot opens with New York opera singer Claire Buchanan calling on the investigative services of Prudence MacKenzie and her partner, Geoffrey Hunter. Claire shows up at their door begging them to find out exactly how her twin sister, Catherine, and newborn daughter died, believing it was not from natural causes. Catherine’s husband, Aaron Sorenson, is a scoundrel and appears to be marrying women, getting them pregnant, and then having baby and mother die in childbirth. Prudence and Geoffrey find that childbirth can be dangerous to one’s health as they realize that Sorenson’s current wife may also be in danger. His motive, both the late wife and the current wife would inherit a substantial estate, which will go to him upon their death. Sorensen seems to always be in need of money to pay mounting gambling debts. As the tension mounts the investigative team is putting themselves at risk in attempting to expose the murder-for-inheritance scheme.
The author noted, “Catherine was emotionally abused. Women during that time period did not have much choice. In the Gilded Age in New York women were still property of their husbands. They were very limited to what their husbands wanted.”
One of the important clues is a photograph of the late mother and child. Simpson weaves into the story a Victorian Era custom, post-mortem photography. During these scenes readers learn of the spiritualists who believe “about the possibility of capturing an image of the soul leaving a body at the moment of death.” It was during this time that Claire senses something from her twin sister. The author commented, “During my research, I read how twins separated by birth and raised by different families still have the same likes and dislikes and can sense how each other feels.”
Through the characters people learn of the Gilded Age era, with a fascinating description of the homes, the period clothing, and the city of New York. Unlike many women of the time, Prudence is very unconventional, desiring to take the bar exam and become a litigator. For now, she is content to be an amateur sleuth to her partner, ex-Pinkerton agent Geoffrey Hunter, as she learns on the job. “I wrote Prudence being raised by a widowed father who looked at her as a replacement for a son. He did not make an exception for her being a girl and made sure she had a very well developed sharp legal mind. She is determined to make her own way even though she inherited wealth. I read that the Pinkerton Agency hired a lady detective during the Civil War and knew I wanted to make my heroine an investigator who is constantly challenged by Geoffrey.”
The hero and heroine also have flaws. The author uses events that happened during the Gilded Age paralleling them with what is happening today. Simpson explained, “Geoffrey has left his southern roots, abandoning his culture and family. He has a lot of contradictions. Prudence must struggle with her addiction to the drug laudanum. She was given it by her family doctor to help her cope with her father’s passing and then her fiancé’s death. She overcame the reliance on laudanum but not without a terrible struggle and the knowledge that she would never be entirely free of it. I parallel it with the opioid epidemic today. People became accidental addicts because they were given the drugs legally to cope with physical and emotional pain.”
The antagonist, Simpson has no redeeming qualities. He is a cold and calculating thief, a swindler, and bigamist who victimizes rich women. “I wanted to write an absolute villain. He is unscrupulous, uncaring with no conscience. He had every vile habit known. I do not write cozy mysteries, but historical noirs. My bad guys are really, really bad who cause awful things to happen.”
The author definitely had done her homework. “I want to feel I live in this world for awhile and to get the reader to feel that also. I read the New York Times Archives and fall into the rhythm of the language used, how they spoke, wrote and thought. It puts me in the mindset of the character I am writing about.” With her detailed descriptions and gripping story Simpson has also drawn the reader into the time period through an exciting and action-packed mystery.
The plot opens with New York opera singer Claire Buchanan calling on the investigative services of Prudence MacKenzie and her partner, Geoffrey Hunter. Claire shows up at their door begging them to find out exactly how her twin sister, Catherine, and newborn daughter died, believing it was not from natural causes. Catherine’s husband, Aaron Sorenson, is a scoundrel and appears to be marrying women, getting them pregnant, and then having baby and mother die in childbirth. Prudence and Geoffrey find that childbirth can be dangerous to one’s health as they realize that Sorenson’s current wife may also be in danger. His motive, both the late wife and the current wife would inherit a substantial estate, which will go to him upon their death. Sorensen seems to always be in need of money to pay mounting gambling debts. As the tension mounts the investigative team is putting themselves at risk in attempting to expose the murder-for-inheritance scheme.
The author noted, “Catherine was emotionally abused. Women during that time period did not have much choice. In the Gilded Age in New York women were still property of their husbands. They were very limited to what their husbands wanted.”
One of the important clues is a photograph of the late mother and child. Simpson weaves into the story a Victorian Era custom, post-mortem photography. During these scenes readers learn of the spiritualists who believe “about the possibility of capturing an image of the soul leaving a body at the moment of death.” It was during this time that Claire senses something from her twin sister. The author commented, “During my research, I read how twins separated by birth and raised by different families still have the same likes and dislikes and can sense how each other feels.”
Through the characters people learn of the Gilded Age era, with a fascinating description of the homes, the period clothing, and the city of New York. Unlike many women of the time, Prudence is very unconventional, desiring to take the bar exam and become a litigator. For now, she is content to be an amateur sleuth to her partner, ex-Pinkerton agent Geoffrey Hunter, as she learns on the job. “I wrote Prudence being raised by a widowed father who looked at her as a replacement for a son. He did not make an exception for her being a girl and made sure she had a very well developed sharp legal mind. She is determined to make her own way even though she inherited wealth. I read that the Pinkerton Agency hired a lady detective during the Civil War and knew I wanted to make my heroine an investigator who is constantly challenged by Geoffrey.”
The hero and heroine also have flaws. The author uses events that happened during the Gilded Age paralleling them with what is happening today. Simpson explained, “Geoffrey has left his southern roots, abandoning his culture and family. He has a lot of contradictions. Prudence must struggle with her addiction to the drug laudanum. She was given it by her family doctor to help her cope with her father’s passing and then her fiancé’s death. She overcame the reliance on laudanum but not without a terrible struggle and the knowledge that she would never be entirely free of it. I parallel it with the opioid epidemic today. People became accidental addicts because they were given the drugs legally to cope with physical and emotional pain.”
The antagonist, Simpson has no redeeming qualities. He is a cold and calculating thief, a swindler, and bigamist who victimizes rich women. “I wanted to write an absolute villain. He is unscrupulous, uncaring with no conscience. He had every vile habit known. I do not write cozy mysteries, but historical noirs. My bad guys are really, really bad who cause awful things to happen.”
The author definitely had done her homework. “I want to feel I live in this world for awhile and to get the reader to feel that also. I read the New York Times Archives and fall into the rhythm of the language used, how they spoke, wrote and thought. It puts me in the mindset of the character I am writing about.” With her detailed descriptions and gripping story Simpson has also drawn the reader into the time period through an exciting and action-packed mystery.