Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All of Me (1984) in Movies
Jul 28, 2020
Wonderful physical comedy performance by Martin
Over the history of cinema, there are certain Director/Lead Actor pairings that are perfect for each other. John Ford/John Wayne, Alfred Hitchcock/Jimmy Stewart, Martin Scorcese/Robert DeNiro, Steven Spielberg/Tom Hanks all come to mind. Add to that the inspired comedic pairing of Director Carl Reiner and the great Steve Martin.
Starting with THE JERK (1979), Martin and Reiner would make 4 films together the last of which was the 1984 comedy ALL OF ME starring Martin and Lilly Tomlin. And like all Reiner/Martin comedies this one is smartly written with heart and a physically comedic performance by Martin that must be seen to believed.
Martin stars as Lawyer Martin Cobb, an aspiring musician who views his lawyer job as a means to support his dream of becoming a musician. Lilly Tomlin co-stars as one of Martin's clients - a dour, serious millionaire who's dying wish is to have her soul transferred into the body of a younger woman. When the transfer goes wrong, Tomlin finds herself inside Martin's body and the two polar opposites spar each other whilst inside the same body.
A pretty ridiculous premise that is executed wonderfully under the watchful Direction of Reiner. He pushes the premise far - but not too far - focusing (wisely) most of the attention of this movie on Martin and his body's maniacal behavior as both Martin and Tomlin wrestle for control of his body.
Martin, of course, is perfectly cast in a role that was tailor made for him. His physical comedy skills are well used by Reiner and the scene of Martin walking down the street in control of the left side of his body while Tomlin is in control of the right side of his body is worth the price of admission right there. But Martin brings a heart and warmth to his character as well as his well known personae of a person who thinks he is the only sane one in the room - where, in fact, he is the INSANE one.
Tomlin fares less well in her role - being trapped (literally) inside Martin's body and is only seen as reflections in a mirror. Here character is the polar opposite of Martin's, so while Martin is "wild and crazy", she is dour and buttoned up - and this doesn't do her any favors.
Special notice needs to be made of Richard Libertini's turn as Prahka Lasa, the well-meaning "yogi" who is the conduit of the body switching soul. His limited English, earnest and well meaning almost steals the film from Martin.
All in all, an enjoyable evening at the movies which showcases Reiner's ability as a Director and Martin's ability as a gifted, physical comedian very well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starting with THE JERK (1979), Martin and Reiner would make 4 films together the last of which was the 1984 comedy ALL OF ME starring Martin and Lilly Tomlin. And like all Reiner/Martin comedies this one is smartly written with heart and a physically comedic performance by Martin that must be seen to believed.
Martin stars as Lawyer Martin Cobb, an aspiring musician who views his lawyer job as a means to support his dream of becoming a musician. Lilly Tomlin co-stars as one of Martin's clients - a dour, serious millionaire who's dying wish is to have her soul transferred into the body of a younger woman. When the transfer goes wrong, Tomlin finds herself inside Martin's body and the two polar opposites spar each other whilst inside the same body.
A pretty ridiculous premise that is executed wonderfully under the watchful Direction of Reiner. He pushes the premise far - but not too far - focusing (wisely) most of the attention of this movie on Martin and his body's maniacal behavior as both Martin and Tomlin wrestle for control of his body.
Martin, of course, is perfectly cast in a role that was tailor made for him. His physical comedy skills are well used by Reiner and the scene of Martin walking down the street in control of the left side of his body while Tomlin is in control of the right side of his body is worth the price of admission right there. But Martin brings a heart and warmth to his character as well as his well known personae of a person who thinks he is the only sane one in the room - where, in fact, he is the INSANE one.
Tomlin fares less well in her role - being trapped (literally) inside Martin's body and is only seen as reflections in a mirror. Here character is the polar opposite of Martin's, so while Martin is "wild and crazy", she is dour and buttoned up - and this doesn't do her any favors.
Special notice needs to be made of Richard Libertini's turn as Prahka Lasa, the well-meaning "yogi" who is the conduit of the body switching soul. His limited English, earnest and well meaning almost steals the film from Martin.
All in all, an enjoyable evening at the movies which showcases Reiner's ability as a Director and Martin's ability as a gifted, physical comedian very well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Catfish (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nev Schulman is a photographer of dance that catches the eye of an 8 year old girl named Abby when one of his pictures is published nationally. She sends Nev a painting of his published picture, which begins a rather incredible friendship. Nev eventually gets the chance to talk to Abby's mom, Angela, and her older sister, Megan. Megan and Nev really start to hit it off and a relationship begins to form. That is until many of the things Megan has been telling Nev begin drifting further and further from the truth. Nev decides to fly to Michigan and get the answers he so desperately desires.
If somebody made me choose a favorite film genre, psychological thriller would quite possibly be my answer. Films that include incredible twist endings (Oldboy) or have elaborate storylines that make you think (Inception) are definitely some of the best times to be had when it comes to an entertaining movie experience. Catfish was marketed as a film that was not only a thriller, but also contained "a shattering conclusion" that was compared to Alfred Hitchcock. In the end, it didn't really have either of those things.
Catfish had this vibe the entire film like it was leading towards something dark near its conclusion. As Nev makes his way to Michigan, you get more and more anxious as he nears his destination. Even the music gets really unsettling. Is Megan's family going to be a bunch of chainsaw wielding cannibals or have Angela and Vince been keeping a kidnapped girl named Megan chained in their basement for weeks to lead young, single guys out there for them to torture as some sort of twisted way to get off? No, it's nothing like that. Catfish never really became thrilling or even came near diving into dark territory.
What Catfish winds up being is an interesting character study presented as a documentary. The film's heart resides in who Megan really is and how the entire experience affects Nev. Once the pieces of the puzzle are put together and everything falls into place, Catfish turns out to be a very raw, emotional, and heartfelt film. What's intriguing is the film revolves around Facebook and with The Social Network hitting theaters in about two weeks, it seems like a bit of a bold move.
What is arguably the best scene in the film is when it's actually explained why Catfish was chosen as the title in the final minutes. It is a pretty incredible explanation and fits the film perfectly.
Catfish isn't necessarily a bad film, in fact, it's pretty powerful once it really gets going. It probably isn't what you're expecting though. While Catfish is laugh out loud at certain points in the film, at its core, it's a documented love story that mostly resides on the internet. Maybe it just comes from personal experience, the way the film was presented, or the on-screen presence of the characters in the film, but Catfish felt genuine which isn't something that can be said about many films that have come out in 2010.
If somebody made me choose a favorite film genre, psychological thriller would quite possibly be my answer. Films that include incredible twist endings (Oldboy) or have elaborate storylines that make you think (Inception) are definitely some of the best times to be had when it comes to an entertaining movie experience. Catfish was marketed as a film that was not only a thriller, but also contained "a shattering conclusion" that was compared to Alfred Hitchcock. In the end, it didn't really have either of those things.
Catfish had this vibe the entire film like it was leading towards something dark near its conclusion. As Nev makes his way to Michigan, you get more and more anxious as he nears his destination. Even the music gets really unsettling. Is Megan's family going to be a bunch of chainsaw wielding cannibals or have Angela and Vince been keeping a kidnapped girl named Megan chained in their basement for weeks to lead young, single guys out there for them to torture as some sort of twisted way to get off? No, it's nothing like that. Catfish never really became thrilling or even came near diving into dark territory.
What Catfish winds up being is an interesting character study presented as a documentary. The film's heart resides in who Megan really is and how the entire experience affects Nev. Once the pieces of the puzzle are put together and everything falls into place, Catfish turns out to be a very raw, emotional, and heartfelt film. What's intriguing is the film revolves around Facebook and with The Social Network hitting theaters in about two weeks, it seems like a bit of a bold move.
What is arguably the best scene in the film is when it's actually explained why Catfish was chosen as the title in the final minutes. It is a pretty incredible explanation and fits the film perfectly.
Catfish isn't necessarily a bad film, in fact, it's pretty powerful once it really gets going. It probably isn't what you're expecting though. While Catfish is laugh out loud at certain points in the film, at its core, it's a documented love story that mostly resides on the internet. Maybe it just comes from personal experience, the way the film was presented, or the on-screen presence of the characters in the film, but Catfish felt genuine which isn't something that can be said about many films that have come out in 2010.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
If they were to give it a go, this movie should justifiably be Rian's redemption from the harshest of his previous critics. For this is a really entertaining film. I found myself smiling with glee through a sizable proportion of the running time.
Multi-millionaire crime-fiction author Harlan Thrombey (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) is celebrating his 85th birthday with three generations of his family in his "Cludo-like" mansion. But all is not well with the family harmonic and the next morning Harlan is found dead in his room by his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas). Apparently, it's a suicide, but when private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives on the scene he starts turning over stones "oin seearch ov tha troooth" (sic) and dark secrets begin to emerge.
Key to success of this Agatha Christie-style movie is a dense portmanteau cast and a well-plotted script. Both are here present.
In terms of the cast, this is another candidate for the SAG Ensemble Cast award. For the cast is suitably stellar with Chris "Cap" Evans, Toni Collette, Michael Shannon, Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson vying for the top billing with Craig and Plummer. They bounce off each other joyously, with Collette taking my prize for top acting kudos. She's just deliciously over the top as the scheming hippy chick with the rasping voice and the cutting one-liners.
With a starring role is Cuban bombshell Ana de Armas, here notching down the glamour to play the plainly dressed nurse. But she has a magnetic screen presence and is perfectly cast as the girl at the heart of all the action. She has the doe-eyed innocence that Alfred Hitchcock was always looking for in his leading ladies. Interestingly, she is soon to appear with Craig again as Bond-girl Paloma in "No Time to Die".
Elsewhere in the cast are some interesting cameos: the family's lawyer is none other than Frank "Yoda" Oz; and the ancient security guard is M. Emmet Walsh, who has an amazing filmography going back to the late 60's.
Writer/director is clearly his 'thing'. But Rian Johnson here pulls off a neat trick with the script which is brilliantly twisty and turny and 100% entertaining. Although it's presented as cuts between the 'present time' and versions of the night in question, the whole doughnut is never entirely in view until the final reel. It's a satisfying story, and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny.
A nice plot point is the inability for young Marta to tell a lie without vomiting. Wouldn't the UK General Elections be Sooooo much more colourful if that was a general trait!!
I've only the one real criticism of the movie, and that's Daniel Craig's appalling Southern drawl. It's really quite distracting. Aside from some witty lines of dialogue ("What is this? CSI KFC?") nothing would have been lost to cast him as an urbane English detective instead. They could have slipped in some Brexit jokes instead! I appreciate Craig wants to distance himself from Bond somewhat. He did the same thing as Joe Bang in "Logan Lucky". But - sorry - it didn't really work for me then and it doesn't work now either.
In summary, this is a really fun movie that a whole family with older children (the rating is 12+) can go and enjoy together. There's limited violence; limited swearing and sexual innuendo; and no sex (save for the Hitler youth in the bathroom!). But there is a whole lot of sleuthing fun to be had. Bravo Mr Johnson, bravo! For that reason it comes with a bob-the-movie-man "Highly recommended" tag.
(For the full graphical review please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/04/one-manns-movies-film-review-knives-out-2019/).
Multi-millionaire crime-fiction author Harlan Thrombey (the wonderful Christopher Plummer) is celebrating his 85th birthday with three generations of his family in his "Cludo-like" mansion. But all is not well with the family harmonic and the next morning Harlan is found dead in his room by his nurse Marta (Ana de Armas). Apparently, it's a suicide, but when private detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) arrives on the scene he starts turning over stones "oin seearch ov tha troooth" (sic) and dark secrets begin to emerge.
Key to success of this Agatha Christie-style movie is a dense portmanteau cast and a well-plotted script. Both are here present.
In terms of the cast, this is another candidate for the SAG Ensemble Cast award. For the cast is suitably stellar with Chris "Cap" Evans, Toni Collette, Michael Shannon, Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson vying for the top billing with Craig and Plummer. They bounce off each other joyously, with Collette taking my prize for top acting kudos. She's just deliciously over the top as the scheming hippy chick with the rasping voice and the cutting one-liners.
With a starring role is Cuban bombshell Ana de Armas, here notching down the glamour to play the plainly dressed nurse. But she has a magnetic screen presence and is perfectly cast as the girl at the heart of all the action. She has the doe-eyed innocence that Alfred Hitchcock was always looking for in his leading ladies. Interestingly, she is soon to appear with Craig again as Bond-girl Paloma in "No Time to Die".
Elsewhere in the cast are some interesting cameos: the family's lawyer is none other than Frank "Yoda" Oz; and the ancient security guard is M. Emmet Walsh, who has an amazing filmography going back to the late 60's.
Writer/director is clearly his 'thing'. But Rian Johnson here pulls off a neat trick with the script which is brilliantly twisty and turny and 100% entertaining. Although it's presented as cuts between the 'present time' and versions of the night in question, the whole doughnut is never entirely in view until the final reel. It's a satisfying story, and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny.
A nice plot point is the inability for young Marta to tell a lie without vomiting. Wouldn't the UK General Elections be Sooooo much more colourful if that was a general trait!!
I've only the one real criticism of the movie, and that's Daniel Craig's appalling Southern drawl. It's really quite distracting. Aside from some witty lines of dialogue ("What is this? CSI KFC?") nothing would have been lost to cast him as an urbane English detective instead. They could have slipped in some Brexit jokes instead! I appreciate Craig wants to distance himself from Bond somewhat. He did the same thing as Joe Bang in "Logan Lucky". But - sorry - it didn't really work for me then and it doesn't work now either.
In summary, this is a really fun movie that a whole family with older children (the rating is 12+) can go and enjoy together. There's limited violence; limited swearing and sexual innuendo; and no sex (save for the Hitler youth in the bathroom!). But there is a whole lot of sleuthing fun to be had. Bravo Mr Johnson, bravo! For that reason it comes with a bob-the-movie-man "Highly recommended" tag.
(For the full graphical review please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/04/one-manns-movies-film-review-knives-out-2019/).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Why is everyone not raving about this movie?
Imagine a ménage à trois of Agatha Christie, Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino at the Overlook Hotel with a banging 60’s soundtrack. Got that unpleasant vision in your mind? Good! You’re halfway there to getting the feel of “Bad Times at the El Royale”. And they really are bad times!
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Mar 4, 2018
Groundbreaking Special Effects (1 more)
Music
Truly...a masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Savage in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
When I read the blurb for this novella, I was a little bit interested especially when it came to the mysterious village. The whole creature thing isn't usually what I read when it comes to the horror genre, but as this was a short read, I thought I'd give it a try. However, it wasn't something I can say I enjoyed.
I don't really like or dislike the title. It's a bit plain and boring, and I don't really see what it has to do with the book unless it pertains to what the villagers call the undisciplined. No mention of the word savage was ever used.
The cover of this book reminds me of a book from the time of Alfred Hitchcock. I believe that the cover does suit the book.
The world building starts off being believable. It was quite easy to picture a man driving along a country road, his car dying, and then he mysteriously gets transported to a strange village. However, the author starts talking about angles and shapes, and I just found myself being really confused. I wouldn't say this made the world building any less believable but just confusing, at least for me.
I thought the pacing to be a bit too slow for my liking. There's not really any action until almost the very end of the book. Luckily this book is short or else I would've quit reading it before I was finished.
The plot is interesting enough. A man's car breaks down just outside some strange village. The man goes into the village and notices how perfectly angular the people and the landscape is. The villagers start talking about the undisciplined. The man ends up getting locked up but manages to escape. However, he runs into something a lot worse than the strange villagers. So yes, the plot line was interesting enough, but I just felt it was executed a bit poorly. I felt as if the ending didn't tie in with the whole book. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but I will say that if the author was going for that ending, maybe he should've rethought about whether or not to have a mysterious village in the book as the village and the ending don't really mesh well.
I did like Daryl. He seemed like your everyday, normal working man. However, I think he was a bit too intellectual for me to fully relate to. As for the villagers, I can't really comment on them because I felt like there wasn't enough back story on the village and its people to fully form an opinion. I would've liked more back story on the village, and I feel that with more back story, the book would've been less confusing and more interesting.
There wasn't much dialogue in the book which I found disappointing. It seemed like all that was in the book was adjectives and too much description for my liking. Not only that, but I felt that the words used were too intellectual for a common reader such as myself. A lot of the time I didn't even know what the words meant, and this lead to a lot of confusion and lack of interest for me. It's just too wordy of a book if that makes sense. There are a few swear words and a tiny bit of violence. There is also a little bit of sexual references but only in one or two scenes, and it's not very graphic.
Overall, Savage by Gary Fry has a promising story line, but with all the big words, too much description and not enough dialogue, it just falls flat. It doesn't help that the mysterious village has no back story and that the ending doesn't really mesh with the rest of the story.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend this book unless you know words that aren't used in every day conversations or if you're an English major. I'd say this book is written for those 18+.
<b>I'd give Savage by Gary Fry a 2 out of 5.</b>
(I received a free ecopy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley for an honest and unbiased review).
When I read the blurb for this novella, I was a little bit interested especially when it came to the mysterious village. The whole creature thing isn't usually what I read when it comes to the horror genre, but as this was a short read, I thought I'd give it a try. However, it wasn't something I can say I enjoyed.
I don't really like or dislike the title. It's a bit plain and boring, and I don't really see what it has to do with the book unless it pertains to what the villagers call the undisciplined. No mention of the word savage was ever used.
The cover of this book reminds me of a book from the time of Alfred Hitchcock. I believe that the cover does suit the book.
The world building starts off being believable. It was quite easy to picture a man driving along a country road, his car dying, and then he mysteriously gets transported to a strange village. However, the author starts talking about angles and shapes, and I just found myself being really confused. I wouldn't say this made the world building any less believable but just confusing, at least for me.
I thought the pacing to be a bit too slow for my liking. There's not really any action until almost the very end of the book. Luckily this book is short or else I would've quit reading it before I was finished.
The plot is interesting enough. A man's car breaks down just outside some strange village. The man goes into the village and notices how perfectly angular the people and the landscape is. The villagers start talking about the undisciplined. The man ends up getting locked up but manages to escape. However, he runs into something a lot worse than the strange villagers. So yes, the plot line was interesting enough, but I just felt it was executed a bit poorly. I felt as if the ending didn't tie in with the whole book. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but I will say that if the author was going for that ending, maybe he should've rethought about whether or not to have a mysterious village in the book as the village and the ending don't really mesh well.
I did like Daryl. He seemed like your everyday, normal working man. However, I think he was a bit too intellectual for me to fully relate to. As for the villagers, I can't really comment on them because I felt like there wasn't enough back story on the village and its people to fully form an opinion. I would've liked more back story on the village, and I feel that with more back story, the book would've been less confusing and more interesting.
There wasn't much dialogue in the book which I found disappointing. It seemed like all that was in the book was adjectives and too much description for my liking. Not only that, but I felt that the words used were too intellectual for a common reader such as myself. A lot of the time I didn't even know what the words meant, and this lead to a lot of confusion and lack of interest for me. It's just too wordy of a book if that makes sense. There are a few swear words and a tiny bit of violence. There is also a little bit of sexual references but only in one or two scenes, and it's not very graphic.
Overall, Savage by Gary Fry has a promising story line, but with all the big words, too much description and not enough dialogue, it just falls flat. It doesn't help that the mysterious village has no back story and that the ending doesn't really mesh with the rest of the story.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend this book unless you know words that aren't used in every day conversations or if you're an English major. I'd say this book is written for those 18+.
<b>I'd give Savage by Gary Fry a 2 out of 5.</b>
(I received a free ecopy of this book from the publisher through Netgalley for an honest and unbiased review).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Jul 4, 2018
A Masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated 7500 (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2020
Greetings & Salutations Everyone!
On behalf of myself and my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ I want to say I hope all of you and those nearest and dearest to you continue to be healthy and safe during these uncertain times.
We’ve made it to another summer and with that comes a multitude of new films for the summer of 2020 only they’ll assemble in the queues on your digital devices rather than the movie theaters. Trust me. That’s a good thing right about now. We’re going to take a turn off the beaten path this time. Instead of a comedy or an action film, we’re going to start things off with a thriller. With all the unpleasantness going about it seems like an odd move perhaps? Not really. A well-made thriller film will create such intensity that you’ll completely forget about everything else at least for the film’s running time anyways. Judging from my own experience, today’s movie for you consideration will accomplish just that.
The aviation transponder code indicating that a hijack is in progress. Essentially the worst case scenario for any flight crew and accompanying passengers. The basis for today’s film. ‘7500’ is a 2019 an Austrian/German/American dramatic thriller from Amazon Studios and the directorial debut of German filmmaker Patrick Vollrath. Written by Vollrath and Senad Halilbasic and stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt (in his first film since 2016), Omid Memar, Aylin Tezel, Carlo Kitzlinger, Aurélie Thépaut, Murathan Muslu, and Paul Wollin.
Evening. Berlin Tegal Airport. Passengers and crew board a passenger plane bound for Paris. A routine flight (from what I’ve personally been told by retired U.S. Air Force personnel and friends in France, an amazing experience for any traveler). While the passengers begin to board he plane, Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Levitt) and his girlfriend Gökce (Tezel) one of the flight attendants trying to decide on which school they can send their child too. Captain Michael Lutzmann (Kitzlinger) makes his way into the cockpit while making jokes regarding the plane. Everyday life. Flight check complete, the plane proceeds to take off and for the first few moments a routine trip. That quickly changes when a group of men including a young man named Vedat, attempt to break into the plane’s flight deck and take control of plane. After a brief but violent struggle, Tobias and Captain Lutzman despite both being wounded, overpower one of the hijackers and force the cockpit door closed. Over the course of the next few moments, the situation will go from bad to worse as the fate of the passengers, the crew, and even the hijackers will be left in Tobias’s hands as he attempts to get the plane to safety while injured and thwart the plans of Vedat and his associates. One thing is clear. No matter what happens, no matter how much he might want to, he cannot under any circumstances open the door to the flight deck.
Right off the bat. 4 out of 5 stars. The film was brilliant. My eyes were glued to the computer monitor for the 92 minute runtime of the movie. Part of which was due to the fact that the film was based entirely upon the idea of something that could very well possibly happen and unfortunately has happened before. There is a focus on conviction for both sides. How far is an individual prepared to go? What are they willing to do to prevent the other from overpowering them regardless if your intentions are just or malevolent? What is one willing to sacrifice in order to carry out an objective or safeguard the lives of a group? Joseph Gordon-Levitt might have been out of the game for a while but he certainly hasn’t lost his edge and the cast and crew of the film he decided to team-up with for this outing did not disappoint either.
I wouldn’t recommend this one for the kids due to the dark nature of the story and the violence involved at points in the film. It does touch upon certain stereotypes which perhaps should be talked about among those who see the movie. The film takes place almost exclusively on the flight deck of the plane which reminded me of Joel Schumacher’s 2003 film ‘Phone Booth’ starring Colin Farrell or Mukunda Michael Dewil’s 2013 film Vehicle 19 starring the late Paul Walker. The focus of the confined space only adds to the intensity and so very few directors have managed to pull off films like these three. Definitely add this film to your queue and pick a Friday or Saturday late night to view it. I personally believe the ‘Master of Suspense’ Alfred Hitchcock himself would have.
On behalf of myself and my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ I want to say I hope all of you and those nearest and dearest to you continue to be healthy and safe during these uncertain times.
We’ve made it to another summer and with that comes a multitude of new films for the summer of 2020 only they’ll assemble in the queues on your digital devices rather than the movie theaters. Trust me. That’s a good thing right about now. We’re going to take a turn off the beaten path this time. Instead of a comedy or an action film, we’re going to start things off with a thriller. With all the unpleasantness going about it seems like an odd move perhaps? Not really. A well-made thriller film will create such intensity that you’ll completely forget about everything else at least for the film’s running time anyways. Judging from my own experience, today’s movie for you consideration will accomplish just that.
The aviation transponder code indicating that a hijack is in progress. Essentially the worst case scenario for any flight crew and accompanying passengers. The basis for today’s film. ‘7500’ is a 2019 an Austrian/German/American dramatic thriller from Amazon Studios and the directorial debut of German filmmaker Patrick Vollrath. Written by Vollrath and Senad Halilbasic and stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt (in his first film since 2016), Omid Memar, Aylin Tezel, Carlo Kitzlinger, Aurélie Thépaut, Murathan Muslu, and Paul Wollin.
Evening. Berlin Tegal Airport. Passengers and crew board a passenger plane bound for Paris. A routine flight (from what I’ve personally been told by retired U.S. Air Force personnel and friends in France, an amazing experience for any traveler). While the passengers begin to board he plane, Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Levitt) and his girlfriend Gökce (Tezel) one of the flight attendants trying to decide on which school they can send their child too. Captain Michael Lutzmann (Kitzlinger) makes his way into the cockpit while making jokes regarding the plane. Everyday life. Flight check complete, the plane proceeds to take off and for the first few moments a routine trip. That quickly changes when a group of men including a young man named Vedat, attempt to break into the plane’s flight deck and take control of plane. After a brief but violent struggle, Tobias and Captain Lutzman despite both being wounded, overpower one of the hijackers and force the cockpit door closed. Over the course of the next few moments, the situation will go from bad to worse as the fate of the passengers, the crew, and even the hijackers will be left in Tobias’s hands as he attempts to get the plane to safety while injured and thwart the plans of Vedat and his associates. One thing is clear. No matter what happens, no matter how much he might want to, he cannot under any circumstances open the door to the flight deck.
Right off the bat. 4 out of 5 stars. The film was brilliant. My eyes were glued to the computer monitor for the 92 minute runtime of the movie. Part of which was due to the fact that the film was based entirely upon the idea of something that could very well possibly happen and unfortunately has happened before. There is a focus on conviction for both sides. How far is an individual prepared to go? What are they willing to do to prevent the other from overpowering them regardless if your intentions are just or malevolent? What is one willing to sacrifice in order to carry out an objective or safeguard the lives of a group? Joseph Gordon-Levitt might have been out of the game for a while but he certainly hasn’t lost his edge and the cast and crew of the film he decided to team-up with for this outing did not disappoint either.
I wouldn’t recommend this one for the kids due to the dark nature of the story and the violence involved at points in the film. It does touch upon certain stereotypes which perhaps should be talked about among those who see the movie. The film takes place almost exclusively on the flight deck of the plane which reminded me of Joel Schumacher’s 2003 film ‘Phone Booth’ starring Colin Farrell or Mukunda Michael Dewil’s 2013 film Vehicle 19 starring the late Paul Walker. The focus of the confined space only adds to the intensity and so very few directors have managed to pull off films like these three. Definitely add this film to your queue and pick a Friday or Saturday late night to view it. I personally believe the ‘Master of Suspense’ Alfred Hitchcock himself would have.