Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Indiana jones and the dial of destiny (2023) in Movies
Jul 9, 2023
Needed A Spark
Have you ever gone to a live stage play/musical on a Friday or Saturday evening and you can just feel the crackle of excitement and energy in the air and the performers on stage seem to catch that surge of energy and their performances are turned up a notch because of it?
And then, you return to that same theater - for the same show - for a Wednesday matinee and things are just flat. Same show, same performers, same entertainment, but that “spark” just isn’t there?
Such is the case of INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY - the Wednesday Matinee performance of an Indiana Jones adventures.
This James Mangold (FORD v FERRARI) Directed Indiana Jones adventure hits all the right notes - chase scenes, fights on a moving train, treasure hunt/quest for an ancient artifact, Indy getting into (and out of) trouble, etc…but Dial of Destiny never quite elevated itself above the norm.
80 year old Harrison Ford (and some stunt doubles and a boatload of de-aging software) is back, of course, as Indiana Jones and it is like pulling on an old, tattered sweatshirt - very comfortable and comforting. He is aided (in a cameo) by John Rhys-Davies’ Sallah (good to see him in an Indy movie again) and by rock solid additions of Antonio Banderas (ZORRO) and good ol’ Toby Jones (INFAMOUS) as colleagues and fellow adventurers as well as an above-average turn by Phoebe Waller-Bridge (TV’s FLEABAG).
These folks fight Nazis (naturally) and a bad guy played by Mads Mikkelsen (ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY) in an adventure that was “just fine” but “nothing special”, all set to a score by 90 year old John Williams(!). Oh, and don’t forget the welcome appearance of Karen Allen as Marion Ravenswood in what was one of the highlight scenes of the film.
Unfortunately, Mangold never elevates these characters, the chases, the escapes, the call backs to earlier Indiana Jones films above a pleasant warmth of memory, recalling all the good times/grand adventures that Indy has taken the audience on throughout the years. This film needed someone/some THING to help elevate it above the norm.
It needed Steven Spielberg to Direct.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And then, you return to that same theater - for the same show - for a Wednesday matinee and things are just flat. Same show, same performers, same entertainment, but that “spark” just isn’t there?
Such is the case of INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY - the Wednesday Matinee performance of an Indiana Jones adventures.
This James Mangold (FORD v FERRARI) Directed Indiana Jones adventure hits all the right notes - chase scenes, fights on a moving train, treasure hunt/quest for an ancient artifact, Indy getting into (and out of) trouble, etc…but Dial of Destiny never quite elevated itself above the norm.
80 year old Harrison Ford (and some stunt doubles and a boatload of de-aging software) is back, of course, as Indiana Jones and it is like pulling on an old, tattered sweatshirt - very comfortable and comforting. He is aided (in a cameo) by John Rhys-Davies’ Sallah (good to see him in an Indy movie again) and by rock solid additions of Antonio Banderas (ZORRO) and good ol’ Toby Jones (INFAMOUS) as colleagues and fellow adventurers as well as an above-average turn by Phoebe Waller-Bridge (TV’s FLEABAG).
These folks fight Nazis (naturally) and a bad guy played by Mads Mikkelsen (ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY) in an adventure that was “just fine” but “nothing special”, all set to a score by 90 year old John Williams(!). Oh, and don’t forget the welcome appearance of Karen Allen as Marion Ravenswood in what was one of the highlight scenes of the film.
Unfortunately, Mangold never elevates these characters, the chases, the escapes, the call backs to earlier Indiana Jones films above a pleasant warmth of memory, recalling all the good times/grand adventures that Indy has taken the audience on throughout the years. This film needed someone/some THING to help elevate it above the norm.
It needed Steven Spielberg to Direct.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Why Will Smith is a wise, wise man.
I’m catching up on a few of the big films I missed during 2016. But Roland Emmerich has a lot to answer for with this one. Twenty years after Independence Day smashed the summer box office of 1996, the aliens are back: bigger and badder than ever. Steven Hiller (Will Smith) is no longer on the scene but, to give Emmerich a little credit, he has gathered an impressive array of the original stars to return led by Hiller’s wife Jasmine (Vivica Fox), President Whitmore (Bill Pullman), Dr Okun (Brent Spiner), David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) and his dad (Judd Hirsch). The great Robert Loggia even turns up, who played the original General Grey, looking like he is about to expire (which unfortunately he did late last year, and the film is in memorial to him). All of them have weathered over the years apart from Judd Hirsch who must have a picture in his attic.
Playing the new generation (Hiller’s young son Dylan and the president’s daughter Patricia) are Jessie Usher and the comely Maika Monroe respectively, the latter having the pout of a young Jessica Alba and showing promise. Rounding off the young ‘uns, and playing an enormously irritating hunk/hero and his sidekick buddy are Jake (Liam Hemsworth – yes, younger brother of Chris) and Floyd (Nicolas Wright). And with the obvious needs of summer blockbusters to appeal to the ravenous Chinese market there is also Shanghai-born Angelababy as a young hotshot pilot and Chin Han as her uncle, moonbase commander Commander Jiang.
It’s hard to know where to start with criticism of this film. It’s like you’ve caught someone desecrating the grave of a dearly departed relative. The plot is ludicrous…. Uh oh…here comes another One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre….
The scene: onboard the alien craft high above central Asia
DRONE K’FAALL: “The use of the anti-gravity weapon worked a treat your Majesty. We have ripped up Shanghai and dumped in from a great height on London! Take that Queenie! All hail our weapons superiority! I take it we should just ‘rinse and repeat’ around the world to wipe them all out? ”
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No K’Fall. Let’s land in the Atlantic and then go fight them one-on-one with our little ships in the desert near Area 51.”
DRONE K’FALL: “B-b-b-but your Majesty, with our gravity weapon we could eliminate all threat, drill out the earth’s core and find what we came here for in perfect safety!”.
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No… that’s just what they’ll be expecting us to do…”
I thought the Oscar for the dumbest aliens of the year was a shoe-in for the ones who chose a similar tactic in “The 5th Wave” – but no… we have another contender for the crown. This ridiculous London-based CGI sequence – a virtual re-shoot of the ridiculous CGI sequence in Emmerich’s “2012” where John Cusack is fleeing by plane a collapsing Los Angeles – is mitigated only by Goldblum’s witty comment about them “Always going for the landmarks” – the best line in the film.
Elsewhere, the story and screenplay – by an army of writers (never a good sign) – is risible and an insult to intelligence, alien or otherwise. The ludicrous plot points go on and on…
Why on earth is the single landed alien craft from 1996 owned by an African warlord? If mankind have ‘benefited’ so much from the alien technology that must surely have been through the UN-dismantling of that ship?
There seems to be no logical connection between the “visions” (stolen from “Close Encounters”) and the alien craft. The visions might have well have been of the alien’s last shopping list (“six cans of Kraag beans; one bottle of Vollufi ale; … “);
The alien craft is big enough to span the WHOLE Atlantic when it lands, but – who would believe it? – comes to a stop with its edge in Washington JUST ENOUGH to dip the White House flag to a jaunty angle. #cringe;
The alien ship – apparently open to the elements – allows our heroic hunks to wander around without spacesuits;
Breathless… or not. Jessie T Usher and Liam Hemsworth (foreground) not dying of asphyxiation or cold.
At one point it looked like our curvaceous heroine was going to defeat the alien queen in good ol’ Wild West fashion armed only with a handgun (but no, my head could come out of my hands again);
And don’t even get me started on the opening “excitement” about propping up a collapsing supergun on the moon with a spaceship. Gerry Anderson would be spinning in his grave.
The dialogue is little better. The original “Independence Day” was probably most famous for two scenes: the impressive destruction of the White House and Bill Paxton’s ludicrously corny “We will not go quietly into the night” speech. Here trying to go one better we have not just one version of this but two with William Fichner’s General Adams chipping one in from the rough before Paxton delivers an impromptu hanger speech that is toe-curlingly excruciating.
Much of the acting is of the “I really don’t want to be here but it’s good for the pension” variety with Paxton and Goldblum going through the motions and Charlotte Gainsborough being horribly miscast as a French anthropologist running around the world on the trail of Pokemon Go characters… or symbols… or something. Only Brent Spiner and Judd Hirsch really get into their stride with likeably over-the-top performances.
Goldblum and Charlotte Gainsborough. A less likely historic romantic attachment its difficult to imagine.
If this was a standalone story it might scrape a double-Fad… but as it so horrendously sullies a classic movie experience it incurs my cinematic wrath. It might have made Roland Emmer-richer (sic)…. but my recommendation would be to get a big bag of popcorn, the original 1996 movie on DVD and enjoy. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
Playing the new generation (Hiller’s young son Dylan and the president’s daughter Patricia) are Jessie Usher and the comely Maika Monroe respectively, the latter having the pout of a young Jessica Alba and showing promise. Rounding off the young ‘uns, and playing an enormously irritating hunk/hero and his sidekick buddy are Jake (Liam Hemsworth – yes, younger brother of Chris) and Floyd (Nicolas Wright). And with the obvious needs of summer blockbusters to appeal to the ravenous Chinese market there is also Shanghai-born Angelababy as a young hotshot pilot and Chin Han as her uncle, moonbase commander Commander Jiang.
It’s hard to know where to start with criticism of this film. It’s like you’ve caught someone desecrating the grave of a dearly departed relative. The plot is ludicrous…. Uh oh…here comes another One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre….
The scene: onboard the alien craft high above central Asia
DRONE K’FAALL: “The use of the anti-gravity weapon worked a treat your Majesty. We have ripped up Shanghai and dumped in from a great height on London! Take that Queenie! All hail our weapons superiority! I take it we should just ‘rinse and repeat’ around the world to wipe them all out? ”
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No K’Fall. Let’s land in the Atlantic and then go fight them one-on-one with our little ships in the desert near Area 51.”
DRONE K’FALL: “B-b-b-but your Majesty, with our gravity weapon we could eliminate all threat, drill out the earth’s core and find what we came here for in perfect safety!”.
QUEEN ALIEN BEE: “No… that’s just what they’ll be expecting us to do…”
I thought the Oscar for the dumbest aliens of the year was a shoe-in for the ones who chose a similar tactic in “The 5th Wave” – but no… we have another contender for the crown. This ridiculous London-based CGI sequence – a virtual re-shoot of the ridiculous CGI sequence in Emmerich’s “2012” where John Cusack is fleeing by plane a collapsing Los Angeles – is mitigated only by Goldblum’s witty comment about them “Always going for the landmarks” – the best line in the film.
Elsewhere, the story and screenplay – by an army of writers (never a good sign) – is risible and an insult to intelligence, alien or otherwise. The ludicrous plot points go on and on…
Why on earth is the single landed alien craft from 1996 owned by an African warlord? If mankind have ‘benefited’ so much from the alien technology that must surely have been through the UN-dismantling of that ship?
There seems to be no logical connection between the “visions” (stolen from “Close Encounters”) and the alien craft. The visions might have well have been of the alien’s last shopping list (“six cans of Kraag beans; one bottle of Vollufi ale; … “);
The alien craft is big enough to span the WHOLE Atlantic when it lands, but – who would believe it? – comes to a stop with its edge in Washington JUST ENOUGH to dip the White House flag to a jaunty angle. #cringe;
The alien ship – apparently open to the elements – allows our heroic hunks to wander around without spacesuits;
Breathless… or not. Jessie T Usher and Liam Hemsworth (foreground) not dying of asphyxiation or cold.
At one point it looked like our curvaceous heroine was going to defeat the alien queen in good ol’ Wild West fashion armed only with a handgun (but no, my head could come out of my hands again);
And don’t even get me started on the opening “excitement” about propping up a collapsing supergun on the moon with a spaceship. Gerry Anderson would be spinning in his grave.
The dialogue is little better. The original “Independence Day” was probably most famous for two scenes: the impressive destruction of the White House and Bill Paxton’s ludicrously corny “We will not go quietly into the night” speech. Here trying to go one better we have not just one version of this but two with William Fichner’s General Adams chipping one in from the rough before Paxton delivers an impromptu hanger speech that is toe-curlingly excruciating.
Much of the acting is of the “I really don’t want to be here but it’s good for the pension” variety with Paxton and Goldblum going through the motions and Charlotte Gainsborough being horribly miscast as a French anthropologist running around the world on the trail of Pokemon Go characters… or symbols… or something. Only Brent Spiner and Judd Hirsch really get into their stride with likeably over-the-top performances.
Goldblum and Charlotte Gainsborough. A less likely historic romantic attachment its difficult to imagine.
If this was a standalone story it might scrape a double-Fad… but as it so horrendously sullies a classic movie experience it incurs my cinematic wrath. It might have made Roland Emmer-richer (sic)…. but my recommendation would be to get a big bag of popcorn, the original 1996 movie on DVD and enjoy. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 21, 2018
For the "true" Potter fan
It is a misnomer to call FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD a "Harry Potter" movie. True, it is a film that takes place in the "Harry Potter-verse", but it should, more accurately, be called an "Albus Dumbledore" movie.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Mar 13, 2020
Cracking British all star cast (1 more)
Reminds you just how crazy politics was in 2003
The best little UK film you've never seen
A film about whistle-blowing against the backdrop of the Iraq War of 2003 doesn't sound like a very appealing watch, but "Official Secrets" defies all those fears. It's a cracking little UK movie.
Two years after 9/11, and the West has its sights set on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Tony Blair and George "Dubya" Bush (together with that behind-the-scenes pit-bull Don Cheney - as featured in "Vice") are determined to persuade the United Nations that WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction - are in place, whether they are or not. London is threatened with being a nuclear wasteland within 45 minutes. Of course, while certain areas of the press (including the leadership of "The Guardian") support the war, the majority of the British people think this is total b*llocks! Two journalists - the irascible and volatile Ed Vulliamy (Rhys Ifans) and the head-down but relentless Martin Bright (Matt Smith) - are determined to uncover the truth behind the two government's machinations.
Enter Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley), an interpreter at GCHQ in Cheltenham who, when brought into a loop of the dirty government dealing, takes great exception to it. Unfortunately, she has signed the Official Secret's Act, a document incompatible with a conscience, and with a Kurdish husband Yasar (Adam Bakri) seeking British residence, she is in no position to throw stones.
Can Katharine's legal team, led by human rights lawyer Ben Emmerson (Ralph Fiennes), keep her away from a long prison sentence?
We've seen lots of fictional movies about the little guy up against the immovable mass and sunglass-wearing creepiness of the state: Will Smith's excellent "Enemy of the State" is a great example. Here the frisson in the script by Gregory Bernstein, Sara Bernstein and director Gavin Hood, based on the book by Marsha and Thomas Mitchell, is that it is all based on fact, brought brilliantly to life with interspersed news footage.
It's easy to forget, with nearly 20 years having passed, just how completely f****d up the world was after 9/11. Sabre-rattling became a US obsession, and the news-reel shots of Bush and Blair trying to justify their actions is really quite vomit-inducing.
Keira Knightley gives one of her best performances in years as the rather naive every-woman for appreciates she's digging a hole but has only dawning realisation as to how deep it goes.
But the supporting cast is also outstanding with Smith and Ifans being enormously entertaining as the journos, supported by their supportive boss - Downton's Matthew Goode. Ralph Fiennes delivers a typically underplayed and powerful performance as the legal beagle. Other well known faces popping up include Tamsin Greig and W1A's Monica Dolan.
How gripped you will be will depend on your memory! Mine is officially useless... so the denouement when it came was a surprise to me! But this is a little British film that really packs a punch. Extremely watchable and with a star cast, this ones a keeper. Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/12/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-official-secrets-2019/ Thanks).
Two years after 9/11, and the West has its sights set on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Tony Blair and George "Dubya" Bush (together with that behind-the-scenes pit-bull Don Cheney - as featured in "Vice") are determined to persuade the United Nations that WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction - are in place, whether they are or not. London is threatened with being a nuclear wasteland within 45 minutes. Of course, while certain areas of the press (including the leadership of "The Guardian") support the war, the majority of the British people think this is total b*llocks! Two journalists - the irascible and volatile Ed Vulliamy (Rhys Ifans) and the head-down but relentless Martin Bright (Matt Smith) - are determined to uncover the truth behind the two government's machinations.
Enter Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley), an interpreter at GCHQ in Cheltenham who, when brought into a loop of the dirty government dealing, takes great exception to it. Unfortunately, she has signed the Official Secret's Act, a document incompatible with a conscience, and with a Kurdish husband Yasar (Adam Bakri) seeking British residence, she is in no position to throw stones.
Can Katharine's legal team, led by human rights lawyer Ben Emmerson (Ralph Fiennes), keep her away from a long prison sentence?
We've seen lots of fictional movies about the little guy up against the immovable mass and sunglass-wearing creepiness of the state: Will Smith's excellent "Enemy of the State" is a great example. Here the frisson in the script by Gregory Bernstein, Sara Bernstein and director Gavin Hood, based on the book by Marsha and Thomas Mitchell, is that it is all based on fact, brought brilliantly to life with interspersed news footage.
It's easy to forget, with nearly 20 years having passed, just how completely f****d up the world was after 9/11. Sabre-rattling became a US obsession, and the news-reel shots of Bush and Blair trying to justify their actions is really quite vomit-inducing.
Keira Knightley gives one of her best performances in years as the rather naive every-woman for appreciates she's digging a hole but has only dawning realisation as to how deep it goes.
But the supporting cast is also outstanding with Smith and Ifans being enormously entertaining as the journos, supported by their supportive boss - Downton's Matthew Goode. Ralph Fiennes delivers a typically underplayed and powerful performance as the legal beagle. Other well known faces popping up include Tamsin Greig and W1A's Monica Dolan.
How gripped you will be will depend on your memory! Mine is officially useless... so the denouement when it came was a surprise to me! But this is a little British film that really packs a punch. Extremely watchable and with a star cast, this ones a keeper. Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/12/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-official-secrets-2019/ Thanks).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marnie (1964) in Movies
Nov 6, 2020
Mediocre Hitchcock - but still pretty good
Heading into 1964, Alfred Hitchcock was on quite a roll. He had just rolled out - in order, VERTIGO (1958), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), PSYCHO (1960) and THE BIRDS (1963) and his anthology series ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS had made him into a household name throughout the world. So it was with great anticipation/expectation that the world awaited his next major motion picture.
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Feb 1, 2021
3 Strong Actors Elevate This Above Mediocrity
Generally, when a movie is “dumped” in January, it is a sure sign of a bad film, filled with Liam Neeson kicking butt or CGI monsters attacking a small group of survivors in an isolated location, but these being times that they are, Warner Brothers release of THE LITTLE THINGS simultaneously in Movie Theaters and on HBO MAX gave me reason to change my thinking.
And…I’m glad I did for THE LITTLE THINGS is an intriguing mystery with 3 very strong actors going toe-to-toe with each other.
Written and Directed by John Lee Hancock (THE BLIND SIDE), THE LITTLE THINGS stars the great Denzel Washington as a former L.A. Detective (now a Sherriff in some small town) who returns to L.A. and teams up with his hot shot replacement (Rami Malek) to track down a serial killer (the main suspect being Jared Leto).
It is a moody, atmospheric piece with Hancock taking his time telling the story he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell it, letting this trio of Oscar winning actors take over the story while he creates interesting, moody pictures/scenarios/scenes.
And…this approach mostly works. 2 time Oscar winner Denzel Washington, as you can imagine, is terrific as Joe “Deke” Deacon a cracker-jack Detective that is living with some demons from his last case in L.A.. He is in 90% of the scenes in this film and he is more than capable of carrying this film through some pretty slow and sloggy scenes.
I would love to say that Oscar winner Rami Malek is equal to the task of playing against Washington and keeping the middle part of this film interesting - but he just isn’t. Not to say that Malek is bad - he is very good. He just isn’t as good as Washington and the chemistry between these two characters was just not all that strong.
That said…without spoiling anything…Malek has a scene at the end of this film where he is TERRIFIC and shows that he is a VERY, VERY good actor.
The wild card in this film is Oscar winner Jared Leto as the prime suspect in this case - and he is more than up to the task. As is often the case in these sorts of film (think David Fincher’s SEVEN), Leto does not show up in full force until about 2/3 of the way through the film and that is too bad for he creates sparks on the screen the moment he enters the proceedings and the 3 way interrogation scene between these 3 Oscar winners is, I’m sure, what drew all 3 of these performers to this project and is the best thing in the film.
The praise and the criticism of this film must fall on Writer/Director Hancock, for he was smart enough to cast these 3 actors and direct them well while also falling prey to falling in love too much with the script and atmosphere he created to the detriment of the film. He could have used someone telling him to speed things up.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And…I’m glad I did for THE LITTLE THINGS is an intriguing mystery with 3 very strong actors going toe-to-toe with each other.
Written and Directed by John Lee Hancock (THE BLIND SIDE), THE LITTLE THINGS stars the great Denzel Washington as a former L.A. Detective (now a Sherriff in some small town) who returns to L.A. and teams up with his hot shot replacement (Rami Malek) to track down a serial killer (the main suspect being Jared Leto).
It is a moody, atmospheric piece with Hancock taking his time telling the story he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell it, letting this trio of Oscar winning actors take over the story while he creates interesting, moody pictures/scenarios/scenes.
And…this approach mostly works. 2 time Oscar winner Denzel Washington, as you can imagine, is terrific as Joe “Deke” Deacon a cracker-jack Detective that is living with some demons from his last case in L.A.. He is in 90% of the scenes in this film and he is more than capable of carrying this film through some pretty slow and sloggy scenes.
I would love to say that Oscar winner Rami Malek is equal to the task of playing against Washington and keeping the middle part of this film interesting - but he just isn’t. Not to say that Malek is bad - he is very good. He just isn’t as good as Washington and the chemistry between these two characters was just not all that strong.
That said…without spoiling anything…Malek has a scene at the end of this film where he is TERRIFIC and shows that he is a VERY, VERY good actor.
The wild card in this film is Oscar winner Jared Leto as the prime suspect in this case - and he is more than up to the task. As is often the case in these sorts of film (think David Fincher’s SEVEN), Leto does not show up in full force until about 2/3 of the way through the film and that is too bad for he creates sparks on the screen the moment he enters the proceedings and the 3 way interrogation scene between these 3 Oscar winners is, I’m sure, what drew all 3 of these performers to this project and is the best thing in the film.
The praise and the criticism of this film must fall on Writer/Director Hancock, for he was smart enough to cast these 3 actors and direct them well while also falling prey to falling in love too much with the script and atmosphere he created to the detriment of the film. He could have used someone telling him to speed things up.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated I Kissed a Girl in Books
Aug 12, 2021
A fun movie set romance
Noa Birnbaum's dream is to work in the movies: in horror special effects and makeup. She finally gets a chance to work on a real movie (one step closer to joining the union), but it means dropping out of school, where she's earning her theater degree. Her parents won't be pleased. On the set, she's face to face with actress Lilah Silver, whom Noa has had a crush on for ages. Lilah has her own dreams, to move beyond B-list horror films and into true stardom. This starring role as the "final girl" could be her opportunity. When she meets openly out Noa, Lilah may finally have a chance to admit to her own bisexuality. But a relationship could have its own problems for both Lilah and Noa.
"Noa'd thrown away everything else in her life for this job. And now she was seriously considering throwing the job away for a chance at a girl? Stupid beyond words."
This is a cute story whose strength comes across in its representation--queer characters covering bi, trans, lesbian and more. There's also some excellent Jewish representation, as both Noa and Lilah bond over their religious beliefs. As a member of the LGBTQIA community, I love seeing stories that reflect myself and my friends. Watching Lilah grapple with her bisexuality and coming out and seeing Noa hang out with her friends, being openly out and accepted. These are still stories and characters we do not get to see and read about regularly. Even better, it seems like I read a lot of queer YA books, not a lot where the characters are adults (although they might not always act like it in this story, ha). It was fun and refreshing.
"Special effects artist had never been on the list of things Good Jewish Girls Did."
For me, this book was a little long. It could have been a bit shorter and would have felt more snappy. A lot of the focus in this story is on miscommunication, which is a pet peeve of mine. I just can't handle when so much of the plot could be avoided if the characters just spoke openly to one another. It's also not entirely clear why Noa crushes so much on Lilah, to the point that it seems that she can't rationalize clearly. A lot of this inability to communicate or think clearly leads to some back and forth storylines, so it seems like as if the plot zigs and zags. Up and down. Will Noa go for a relationship with Lilah or keep her job? Is Lilah willing to risk her career for her sexuality? Again, if things had been just a bit shorter, we probably could have skipped a bit of this.
Still, this is a fun story. While Lilah and Noa can be frustrating sometimes, they are engaging characters. The horror film set adds an interesting level to the book (there's another plot line involving Lilah and threats to her safety). It's a little long, but I appreciated all the queer and Jewish rep. 3+ stars.
I received a copy of this book from Sourcebooks Casablanca and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. It releases 8/3/2021.
"Noa'd thrown away everything else in her life for this job. And now she was seriously considering throwing the job away for a chance at a girl? Stupid beyond words."
This is a cute story whose strength comes across in its representation--queer characters covering bi, trans, lesbian and more. There's also some excellent Jewish representation, as both Noa and Lilah bond over their religious beliefs. As a member of the LGBTQIA community, I love seeing stories that reflect myself and my friends. Watching Lilah grapple with her bisexuality and coming out and seeing Noa hang out with her friends, being openly out and accepted. These are still stories and characters we do not get to see and read about regularly. Even better, it seems like I read a lot of queer YA books, not a lot where the characters are adults (although they might not always act like it in this story, ha). It was fun and refreshing.
"Special effects artist had never been on the list of things Good Jewish Girls Did."
For me, this book was a little long. It could have been a bit shorter and would have felt more snappy. A lot of the focus in this story is on miscommunication, which is a pet peeve of mine. I just can't handle when so much of the plot could be avoided if the characters just spoke openly to one another. It's also not entirely clear why Noa crushes so much on Lilah, to the point that it seems that she can't rationalize clearly. A lot of this inability to communicate or think clearly leads to some back and forth storylines, so it seems like as if the plot zigs and zags. Up and down. Will Noa go for a relationship with Lilah or keep her job? Is Lilah willing to risk her career for her sexuality? Again, if things had been just a bit shorter, we probably could have skipped a bit of this.
Still, this is a fun story. While Lilah and Noa can be frustrating sometimes, they are engaging characters. The horror film set adds an interesting level to the book (there's another plot line involving Lilah and threats to her safety). It's a little long, but I appreciated all the queer and Jewish rep. 3+ stars.
I received a copy of this book from Sourcebooks Casablanca and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review. It releases 8/3/2021.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Pale Blue Eye (2022) in Movies
Jan 15, 2023
Haunting and Intriguing
An eerie, gothic murder mystery pairing an ingenious Detective with a young Edgar Allan Poe is now streaming on Netflix and is the perfect way to shut out the January winds and hibernate on your couch and get involved in the mystery while sitting in front of a warm, roaring fire (or heat lamp) and your favorite warm (possibly adult) beverage).
Written for the screen (from book by Louis Bayard) and Directed by Scott Cooper (OUT OF THE FURNACE), THE PALE BLUE EYE stars the always good Christian Bale (probably my favorite actor working today) as Civilian Detective Augustus Landor who is summoned to 1830’s West Point Military Academy to solve a murder. He is aided by a young cadet played by Harry Melling (Dudley Dursley in the HARRY POTTER FILMS) who turns out to be none other than Edgar Allan Poe.
Cooper films this movie in shadow and dark brown and yellow tones, giving the 1830’s setting a certain dream-like, dreary quality that underscores the gruesome goings-on happening behind the scenes at the fledgling United States Military Academy. These types of films - and the mood that is permeated throughout - can often be slow slogs and often times bogs down under the weight of it’s own pretentiousness - but Cooper keeps the action moving forward (though at a deliberate pace) often-times mimicking the piecing together of the circumstances that Bale’s character is doing.
Thank goodness Cooper had the good sense to reunite with his OUT OF THE FURNACE star and cast Bale in the lead role. The character of Detective Augustus Landor is dark and brooding - himself still working through the emotions of a tragedy from his past. But he is also thoughtful and deliberate in his detective work and Bale handles these moods…and the pacing of the film…like the pro that he is. If for no other reason, check out THE PALE BLUE EYE (a reference to Poe’s TELL TALE HEART) for Bale’s performance at the center of things.
Fortunately, Bale is aided in this film by a strong ensemble of (mostly) British actors from Toby Jones to Gillian Anderson to Simon McBurney and Timothy Spall - they all bring their considerable talents to lesser roles as suspects and/or witnesses in this “whodunnit”. Cooper also trots out good ol’ (and I do mean old) Robert Duvall for a “blink or you’ll miss it” cameo. The casting works well for this gothic murder mystery.
And then there is Melling as Edgar Allan Poe. He plays Poe as you might expect one to play a young Edgar Allan Poe - as an “odd duck” who is fascinated by macabre scenarios (which would be later found in his storytelling), but Melling gives him an intelligence and gentleness of soul that really works in this case.
The Cinematography of this movie is bleak and dark - as befits a gothic murder mystery - and the pacing is not fast in any sense of the word, but if you click into this world, you’ll be rewarding by an interesting murder mystery that resolves itself in a surprising - and satisfactory - way.
Letter Grade: B+
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written for the screen (from book by Louis Bayard) and Directed by Scott Cooper (OUT OF THE FURNACE), THE PALE BLUE EYE stars the always good Christian Bale (probably my favorite actor working today) as Civilian Detective Augustus Landor who is summoned to 1830’s West Point Military Academy to solve a murder. He is aided by a young cadet played by Harry Melling (Dudley Dursley in the HARRY POTTER FILMS) who turns out to be none other than Edgar Allan Poe.
Cooper films this movie in shadow and dark brown and yellow tones, giving the 1830’s setting a certain dream-like, dreary quality that underscores the gruesome goings-on happening behind the scenes at the fledgling United States Military Academy. These types of films - and the mood that is permeated throughout - can often be slow slogs and often times bogs down under the weight of it’s own pretentiousness - but Cooper keeps the action moving forward (though at a deliberate pace) often-times mimicking the piecing together of the circumstances that Bale’s character is doing.
Thank goodness Cooper had the good sense to reunite with his OUT OF THE FURNACE star and cast Bale in the lead role. The character of Detective Augustus Landor is dark and brooding - himself still working through the emotions of a tragedy from his past. But he is also thoughtful and deliberate in his detective work and Bale handles these moods…and the pacing of the film…like the pro that he is. If for no other reason, check out THE PALE BLUE EYE (a reference to Poe’s TELL TALE HEART) for Bale’s performance at the center of things.
Fortunately, Bale is aided in this film by a strong ensemble of (mostly) British actors from Toby Jones to Gillian Anderson to Simon McBurney and Timothy Spall - they all bring their considerable talents to lesser roles as suspects and/or witnesses in this “whodunnit”. Cooper also trots out good ol’ (and I do mean old) Robert Duvall for a “blink or you’ll miss it” cameo. The casting works well for this gothic murder mystery.
And then there is Melling as Edgar Allan Poe. He plays Poe as you might expect one to play a young Edgar Allan Poe - as an “odd duck” who is fascinated by macabre scenarios (which would be later found in his storytelling), but Melling gives him an intelligence and gentleness of soul that really works in this case.
The Cinematography of this movie is bleak and dark - as befits a gothic murder mystery - and the pacing is not fast in any sense of the word, but if you click into this world, you’ll be rewarding by an interesting murder mystery that resolves itself in a surprising - and satisfactory - way.
Letter Grade: B+
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Knock at the cabin (2023) in Movies
Mar 31, 2023
Disappointing Ending
Writer/Director M. Night Shyamalan is a hit or miss film maker and that is because his films (usually) rely on a “twist” in the proceedings that make the movie you are watching turn into something different. Sometimes it works (the classic THE SIXTH SENSE), sometimes it doesn’t (THE HAPPENING). But, at least he has the courage of his convictions and you have to respect him for that. However, in KNOCK AT THE CABIN, Shyamalan is doing something that might undercut those twists – he’s beginning to pull his punches.
KNOCK AT THE CABIN opens with an interesting premise – a couple and their daughter are at a remote cabin (with, conveniently enough, no cell phone service) when 4 strangers show up and declare that the world will end unless one of the 3 is sacrificed to stop the upcoming carnage.
It’s a good idea that has, inherently, some moral complications and one quickly jumps onto the side of the 3 in the cabin, writing off the 4 strangers as insane, but as events transpire – and the seeming sincerity of the 4 strangers comes into focus – one starts to have doubts.
Shyamalan does a professional job of weaving the tension into the first ¾ of this film as the 3 in the cabin are trying to make logical sense out of the predicament they are in while the 4 strangers become more and more desperate in their attempts to convince the trio in the cabin to sacrifice one of themselves. This is a director sure of himself and slowly, strongly leading the audience to the ending.
He helps himself by casting some VERY good performers in a film that, basically, takes place in one room. Jonathan Groff (Broadway’s HAMILTON) and Ben Aldridge (Thomas Wayne in the TV Series PENNYWORTH) are convincing and believable as the besieged couple, while David Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films), Rupert Grint (yes, Ron Weasley from the HARRY POTTER films) and newcomer (at least to me) Abby Quinn (RADIUM GIRLS) counterbalance these two nicely. Special notice needs to be made of the 4th person knocking on the cabin, Nikki Amuka-Bird (THE OUTFIT) and youngster Kristen Cui – who both bring much needed pathos and humanity to a film that could have turned into an out-of-control testosterone fest, but ended up being grounded by these two.
So, all of this adds up to a very good time at the movie theater – providing that Shyamalan can stick the landing of this piece.
Alas, he does not. And he does something worse – he pulls his punches as the outcome of one of the characters is changed from what happens to them in the 2018 novel THE CABIN AT THE END OF THE WORLD by Paul Tremblay. Shyamalan could have delivered a gut punch to the audience to accentuate the past bit of time spent with these characters (kind of like what Frank Darabont did with THE MIST) but instead decides to play it safe and lands squarely in the middle of mediocrity-land.
Your enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you like how this film ends. For the BankofMarquis, it was ¾ of a good film with a bad ending.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
KNOCK AT THE CABIN opens with an interesting premise – a couple and their daughter are at a remote cabin (with, conveniently enough, no cell phone service) when 4 strangers show up and declare that the world will end unless one of the 3 is sacrificed to stop the upcoming carnage.
It’s a good idea that has, inherently, some moral complications and one quickly jumps onto the side of the 3 in the cabin, writing off the 4 strangers as insane, but as events transpire – and the seeming sincerity of the 4 strangers comes into focus – one starts to have doubts.
Shyamalan does a professional job of weaving the tension into the first ¾ of this film as the 3 in the cabin are trying to make logical sense out of the predicament they are in while the 4 strangers become more and more desperate in their attempts to convince the trio in the cabin to sacrifice one of themselves. This is a director sure of himself and slowly, strongly leading the audience to the ending.
He helps himself by casting some VERY good performers in a film that, basically, takes place in one room. Jonathan Groff (Broadway’s HAMILTON) and Ben Aldridge (Thomas Wayne in the TV Series PENNYWORTH) are convincing and believable as the besieged couple, while David Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films), Rupert Grint (yes, Ron Weasley from the HARRY POTTER films) and newcomer (at least to me) Abby Quinn (RADIUM GIRLS) counterbalance these two nicely. Special notice needs to be made of the 4th person knocking on the cabin, Nikki Amuka-Bird (THE OUTFIT) and youngster Kristen Cui – who both bring much needed pathos and humanity to a film that could have turned into an out-of-control testosterone fest, but ended up being grounded by these two.
So, all of this adds up to a very good time at the movie theater – providing that Shyamalan can stick the landing of this piece.
Alas, he does not. And he does something worse – he pulls his punches as the outcome of one of the characters is changed from what happens to them in the 2018 novel THE CABIN AT THE END OF THE WORLD by Paul Tremblay. Shyamalan could have delivered a gut punch to the audience to accentuate the past bit of time spent with these characters (kind of like what Frank Darabont did with THE MIST) but instead decides to play it safe and lands squarely in the middle of mediocrity-land.
Your enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you like how this film ends. For the BankofMarquis, it was ¾ of a good film with a bad ending.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Enola Holmes 2 (2022) in Movies
Nov 14, 2022
Pleasant and Entertaining
Back in September 2020 - in the heart of the pandemic shutdown - Netflix released ENOLA HOLMES which was dubbed “the teen version of Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes” - one can decide for themselves if that is a good or a bad thing. For me, this flick was an agreeable way to spend a few hours and I, for one, was looking forward to further adventures of Enola and her more well-known older brother, Sherlock.
And, in ENOLA HOLMES 2, we get exactly that. A very entertaining way to spend a few hours with characters that continue to be a joy to while away the time - and a mystery - with.
Starring Millie Bobby Brown (11 in STRANGER THINGS), Enola Holmes 2 follows the titular character as she has opened her own, competing, Detective Agency. But, as these sorts of things go, her case ends up intertwining with her famous older sibling’s case, so we really get “Holmes and Holmes”.
And that is just fine with me for Brown and Henry Cavill (who plays Sherlock Holmes and who has previously played the MAN OF STEEL) make a winning pair, working off each other with just the right tone of mystery and fun and they look like they are having a good time figuring out the central mystery of this story.
Credit for this must go to Director Harry Bradbeer (Director of the first ENOLA HOLMES film) who came up with this story based on Nancy Springer’s characters (she wrote the ENOLA HOLMES books) and to which Jack Thorne bases his screenplay on. Bradbeer seems to understand these characters and the tone of this film. He makes just the right balance between mystery and fun - keeping the proceedings moving along at a jaunty pace, so the audience can enjoy the ride, but aren’t too jostled around by it.
Brown and Cavill fit right into this tone as does the always wonderful Helena Bonham Carter (she of many films, let’s go with A ROOM WITH A VIEW) as the mother of both of these two Detectives. The sturdy David Thewlis (Professor Lupine in the HARRY POTTER films) brings along his professionalism, comedic timing and mysteriousness as Police Inspector Grail while Louis Partridge returns as the handsome almost-love interest of Enola, Lord Tewkesbury.
Special notice needs to be made of Costumer Consolata Boyle (THE QUEEN) she populates this film with the prerequisite muted colors of 19th Century London (lots of Grey, Black and Dark Blue) but she manages to give Enola just enough of a flair in her costumes. For example, the blue of her skirt is just brighter enough than those around her to punch her up, but it is not so much brighter that it is obviously making her stick out. It is a smart, subtle touch to a very pleasing film to look at.
And that is, really, the bottom line of this movie. It is a very pleasant movie, with a mystery that is interesting enough to keep a person hooked, but not overly complex or dingy as to turn people off.
A good family film - and that is a compliment - the type of film that can be enjoyed by young and old alike.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars
And you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, in ENOLA HOLMES 2, we get exactly that. A very entertaining way to spend a few hours with characters that continue to be a joy to while away the time - and a mystery - with.
Starring Millie Bobby Brown (11 in STRANGER THINGS), Enola Holmes 2 follows the titular character as she has opened her own, competing, Detective Agency. But, as these sorts of things go, her case ends up intertwining with her famous older sibling’s case, so we really get “Holmes and Holmes”.
And that is just fine with me for Brown and Henry Cavill (who plays Sherlock Holmes and who has previously played the MAN OF STEEL) make a winning pair, working off each other with just the right tone of mystery and fun and they look like they are having a good time figuring out the central mystery of this story.
Credit for this must go to Director Harry Bradbeer (Director of the first ENOLA HOLMES film) who came up with this story based on Nancy Springer’s characters (she wrote the ENOLA HOLMES books) and to which Jack Thorne bases his screenplay on. Bradbeer seems to understand these characters and the tone of this film. He makes just the right balance between mystery and fun - keeping the proceedings moving along at a jaunty pace, so the audience can enjoy the ride, but aren’t too jostled around by it.
Brown and Cavill fit right into this tone as does the always wonderful Helena Bonham Carter (she of many films, let’s go with A ROOM WITH A VIEW) as the mother of both of these two Detectives. The sturdy David Thewlis (Professor Lupine in the HARRY POTTER films) brings along his professionalism, comedic timing and mysteriousness as Police Inspector Grail while Louis Partridge returns as the handsome almost-love interest of Enola, Lord Tewkesbury.
Special notice needs to be made of Costumer Consolata Boyle (THE QUEEN) she populates this film with the prerequisite muted colors of 19th Century London (lots of Grey, Black and Dark Blue) but she manages to give Enola just enough of a flair in her costumes. For example, the blue of her skirt is just brighter enough than those around her to punch her up, but it is not so much brighter that it is obviously making her stick out. It is a smart, subtle touch to a very pleasing film to look at.
And that is, really, the bottom line of this movie. It is a very pleasant movie, with a mystery that is interesting enough to keep a person hooked, but not overly complex or dingy as to turn people off.
A good family film - and that is a compliment - the type of film that can be enjoyed by young and old alike.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars
And you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)