Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 8-BIT CHRISTMAS (2021) in Movies
Dec 12, 2021
Charming, Nostalgic and HeartWarming
If I told you that I just watched a charming Holiday movie where the Narrator reminisced about a Christmas of his youth - when he was 10 or 11 - and the Narrator desperately wanted a special present brought to him by Santa - but said item is strictly forbidden in his household, so the Narrator heads off on an adventure to get this item, you would think I was talking about the classic Holiday perennial A CHRISTMAS STORY - and you would be wrong.
I’m speaking about the HBO MAX Original Film 8-BIT CHRISTMAS starring Neil Patrick Harris as the Narrator of the story that reminisces about his life as a 10-11 year old around the Holidays in the late 1980’s.
And, darn it all, if it doesn’t work well (despite my indignation that all they are doing is ripping off A CHRISTMAS STORY) for there is enough nostalgia and heart to melt the emotions of even the most miserly of Ebenezer Scrooge’s this holiday season.
Written by Kevin Jakubowski (based off his book) and Directed by Michael Dowse (the underrated comedy STUBER), 8-Bit Christmas tells the tale of 11 year old Jake Doyle who wants nothing more in this world than to receive the mother of all Christmas presents - a Nintendo 8 Bit system. Along with a “Goonies” collection of friends, Jake sets off to find this hard to find item - and convince his parents to get it for him for Christmas.
In the hands of young actor Winslow Fegley (Disney’s TIMMY FAILURE), young Jake is a pleasant enough protagonist to head off on this journey with. His ragtag group of friends are a group of generic nerds that pretty much check-off the “nerd friend group” list (and this is meant as a compliment). We spend quite a bit of time with these kids and they are a good enough group of kids to spend time with.
This film does hit a few of the same notes as A CHRISTMAS STORY, there is an obsessed, seemingly out of touch Dad, this time played by Steve Zahn (RESCUE DAWN) in a heart-warming portrayal and the coupon-cutting, cost saving Mom played by June Diane Raphael (FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL) who is putting up with it all. This film even has a younger sibling, this time a sister Lizzy, who wants her own elusive gift - a Cabbage Patch kid.
A highlight for me was the performance of Kathy Greenwood as the teacher with the constant sniffles. I know many a teacher and they almost ALWAYS have colds given to them from their charges.
This film is a fine post card of Chicago in the late 1980s and skewers (and honors) the pop-fads of the time (complete with fashion and styling) and is an entertaining enough 2 hour escape during the Holidays.
Oh, and did I mention that at one point in this film, I had to dab at my eyes with a tissue? Yes, despite my skepticism, this film managed to touch my heart even though I fought like crazy to deny that.
If you’re looking for a fun family entertainment this Holiday season, 8-BIT CHRISTMAS can fill the bill nicely.
Letter Grade: B+
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I’m speaking about the HBO MAX Original Film 8-BIT CHRISTMAS starring Neil Patrick Harris as the Narrator of the story that reminisces about his life as a 10-11 year old around the Holidays in the late 1980’s.
And, darn it all, if it doesn’t work well (despite my indignation that all they are doing is ripping off A CHRISTMAS STORY) for there is enough nostalgia and heart to melt the emotions of even the most miserly of Ebenezer Scrooge’s this holiday season.
Written by Kevin Jakubowski (based off his book) and Directed by Michael Dowse (the underrated comedy STUBER), 8-Bit Christmas tells the tale of 11 year old Jake Doyle who wants nothing more in this world than to receive the mother of all Christmas presents - a Nintendo 8 Bit system. Along with a “Goonies” collection of friends, Jake sets off to find this hard to find item - and convince his parents to get it for him for Christmas.
In the hands of young actor Winslow Fegley (Disney’s TIMMY FAILURE), young Jake is a pleasant enough protagonist to head off on this journey with. His ragtag group of friends are a group of generic nerds that pretty much check-off the “nerd friend group” list (and this is meant as a compliment). We spend quite a bit of time with these kids and they are a good enough group of kids to spend time with.
This film does hit a few of the same notes as A CHRISTMAS STORY, there is an obsessed, seemingly out of touch Dad, this time played by Steve Zahn (RESCUE DAWN) in a heart-warming portrayal and the coupon-cutting, cost saving Mom played by June Diane Raphael (FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL) who is putting up with it all. This film even has a younger sibling, this time a sister Lizzy, who wants her own elusive gift - a Cabbage Patch kid.
A highlight for me was the performance of Kathy Greenwood as the teacher with the constant sniffles. I know many a teacher and they almost ALWAYS have colds given to them from their charges.
This film is a fine post card of Chicago in the late 1980s and skewers (and honors) the pop-fads of the time (complete with fashion and styling) and is an entertaining enough 2 hour escape during the Holidays.
Oh, and did I mention that at one point in this film, I had to dab at my eyes with a tissue? Yes, despite my skepticism, this film managed to touch my heart even though I fought like crazy to deny that.
If you’re looking for a fun family entertainment this Holiday season, 8-BIT CHRISTMAS can fill the bill nicely.
Letter Grade: B+
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 17, 2018
Entertaining film - but the book was better
I loved the book.
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated A Wicked Thing (A Wicked Thing, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
My all-time favorite Disney movie (in VCR) – along with Pocahontas and Mulan, to which there are literally zilch retellings to my knowledge – while growing up was <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>. I even reenacted it... for fun and on my own (expected of a four or five year old).
And perhaps it is also one of the most difficult tales to be retold. There's a princess who has a curse placed on her that she would prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel before her sixteenth birthday and die – not entirely too much to take a spin on, is there?
No pun intended.
Much as I give props to Rhiannon Thomas for taking <i>Sleeping Beauty</i> on another path, <i>A Wicked Thing</i> is certainly not a book I would enjoy even for the pleasure of reading. In fact, truth be told in maybe a harsh way, <i>A Wicked Thing</i> was funny. And while funny typically means a good thing, I honestly had a field day reading the first three chapters in between chess matches and poking fun at the book (aka making sassy comments that will make no appearance whatsoever in this review aside from a big basket of mozzarella sticks).
<i>A Wicked Thing</i> is almost a sequel to the original <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>. Some time has passed, and then the prince kisses Aurora – all that jazz is pretty much the same aside from maybe happily ever after, to which I won't bother finding out. Perhaps there <i>is</i> a happily ever after by the end of the book – I'm still not going to go and find out because I'm too focused on making it to at least the top 10 in the class now that I'm extremely close to it.
But let's start with the prince kisses Aurora. She wakes up and screams. It probably makes sense to scream when you wake up to a random stranger hovering above your face and actually kissed you. Honestly, a pretty fantastic opening scene – and I'm serious – aside from the part where the "boy" (we don't know he's a prince YET) says, "I did it. I actually did it."
Then I get a sled and start laughing gleefully (read: found it absolutely amusing) while sliding down a hill (read: continuing the book just see how it all plays out because I haven't found reasons to throw this aside yet and then I do).
Prince Rodric, the "boy," is pathetic. The <i>royal family</i>, in my opinion, is a little pathetic and cheesy. Are they actually pathetic? Perhaps not when you really get to know them and perhaps they're marvelous rulers and the people love them oh-so-dearly, but from the little bit of the book that I read and met the royal family, I find myself disappointed. Particularly disappointed in Rodric the princeling because he will obviously make a huge appearance throughout the rest of the book and I've got to at least like the main characters to enjoy the book.
The dear prince blushes <i>at almost every single sentence he speaks to Aurora</i>. I'm pretty sure the amount of blushes will be the equal amount of election commercials soon (Vote for me! Vote for me!).
<blockquote>He stopped and blushed again.</blockquote>
Princeling probably stutters as well, and is most likely a descendant of Romeo.
<blockquote>“I mean, you always look beautiful. But you look especially beautiful tonight. Is what I mean.”</blockquote>
The king is overly cheery, and while there seems to be a probable reason (my son woke up a slumbering princess!), "overly cheery" really means "exuberantly happy-go-lucky."
<blockquote>“Please send out the heralds. A little extra pomp and circumstance, if you please. It is hardly a normal day.”</blockquote>
No... definitely not a normal day. That much I'll agreee with. But isn't celebrating as soon as Aurora wakes up a little overboard? The chick just woke up from a hundred plus years of slumber and everything literally comes crashing down over on her head upside down! I'm not sure Aurora appreciated that – she was quite confuzzled when she woke up (whoa... what's going on here?!) and even protested a little (not that anyone heard her).
Betsy the maid babbles in excitement and is worse than the king.
<blockquote>“I was so honored, Princess, when they asked me to assist you. I never expected it! But then, I never expected you’d be standing here, if you don’t mind me saying. Not that I didn’t think Rodric could be your true love, because of course he’s wonderful, but it always seemed too much like a dream to ever happen while I was here. Things will be amazing, now, you’ll see. Everyone loves you already. How could they not?”</blockquote>
Reasonable babbling of excitement, seeing as she's a humble servant.
But she and everyone else aside from Aurora is also a little naïve with the assumption that everything is going to be fantastic and happily ever after Aurora and Rodric marry, simply based a fairy tale.
Aurora, however, might have been a character that I would actually like had I continued the book. But by that point in the novel, when Rodric and Aurora are first dining together, I was quite cheesed (it was the constant blushing and cheeriness). While I normally feel guilty for throwing a book aside really early, I don't think I feel too guilty in <i>A Wicked Thing's</i> case.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-arc-review-wicked-thing-by-rhiannon-thomas/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
My all-time favorite Disney movie (in VCR) – along with Pocahontas and Mulan, to which there are literally zilch retellings to my knowledge – while growing up was <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>. I even reenacted it... for fun and on my own (expected of a four or five year old).
And perhaps it is also one of the most difficult tales to be retold. There's a princess who has a curse placed on her that she would prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel before her sixteenth birthday and die – not entirely too much to take a spin on, is there?
No pun intended.
Much as I give props to Rhiannon Thomas for taking <i>Sleeping Beauty</i> on another path, <i>A Wicked Thing</i> is certainly not a book I would enjoy even for the pleasure of reading. In fact, truth be told in maybe a harsh way, <i>A Wicked Thing</i> was funny. And while funny typically means a good thing, I honestly had a field day reading the first three chapters in between chess matches and poking fun at the book (aka making sassy comments that will make no appearance whatsoever in this review aside from a big basket of mozzarella sticks).
<i>A Wicked Thing</i> is almost a sequel to the original <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>. Some time has passed, and then the prince kisses Aurora – all that jazz is pretty much the same aside from maybe happily ever after, to which I won't bother finding out. Perhaps there <i>is</i> a happily ever after by the end of the book – I'm still not going to go and find out because I'm too focused on making it to at least the top 10 in the class now that I'm extremely close to it.
But let's start with the prince kisses Aurora. She wakes up and screams. It probably makes sense to scream when you wake up to a random stranger hovering above your face and actually kissed you. Honestly, a pretty fantastic opening scene – and I'm serious – aside from the part where the "boy" (we don't know he's a prince YET) says, "I did it. I actually did it."
Then I get a sled and start laughing gleefully (read: found it absolutely amusing) while sliding down a hill (read: continuing the book just see how it all plays out because I haven't found reasons to throw this aside yet and then I do).
Prince Rodric, the "boy," is pathetic. The <i>royal family</i>, in my opinion, is a little pathetic and cheesy. Are they actually pathetic? Perhaps not when you really get to know them and perhaps they're marvelous rulers and the people love them oh-so-dearly, but from the little bit of the book that I read and met the royal family, I find myself disappointed. Particularly disappointed in Rodric the princeling because he will obviously make a huge appearance throughout the rest of the book and I've got to at least like the main characters to enjoy the book.
The dear prince blushes <i>at almost every single sentence he speaks to Aurora</i>. I'm pretty sure the amount of blushes will be the equal amount of election commercials soon (Vote for me! Vote for me!).
<blockquote>He stopped and blushed again.</blockquote>
Princeling probably stutters as well, and is most likely a descendant of Romeo.
<blockquote>“I mean, you always look beautiful. But you look especially beautiful tonight. Is what I mean.”</blockquote>
The king is overly cheery, and while there seems to be a probable reason (my son woke up a slumbering princess!), "overly cheery" really means "exuberantly happy-go-lucky."
<blockquote>“Please send out the heralds. A little extra pomp and circumstance, if you please. It is hardly a normal day.”</blockquote>
No... definitely not a normal day. That much I'll agreee with. But isn't celebrating as soon as Aurora wakes up a little overboard? The chick just woke up from a hundred plus years of slumber and everything literally comes crashing down over on her head upside down! I'm not sure Aurora appreciated that – she was quite confuzzled when she woke up (whoa... what's going on here?!) and even protested a little (not that anyone heard her).
Betsy the maid babbles in excitement and is worse than the king.
<blockquote>“I was so honored, Princess, when they asked me to assist you. I never expected it! But then, I never expected you’d be standing here, if you don’t mind me saying. Not that I didn’t think Rodric could be your true love, because of course he’s wonderful, but it always seemed too much like a dream to ever happen while I was here. Things will be amazing, now, you’ll see. Everyone loves you already. How could they not?”</blockquote>
Reasonable babbling of excitement, seeing as she's a humble servant.
But she and everyone else aside from Aurora is also a little naïve with the assumption that everything is going to be fantastic and happily ever after Aurora and Rodric marry, simply based a fairy tale.
Aurora, however, might have been a character that I would actually like had I continued the book. But by that point in the novel, when Rodric and Aurora are first dining together, I was quite cheesed (it was the constant blushing and cheeriness). While I normally feel guilty for throwing a book aside really early, I don't think I feel too guilty in <i>A Wicked Thing's</i> case.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-arc-review-wicked-thing-by-rhiannon-thomas/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Mar 1, 2019
Doesn't Quite Succeed In What It Was Attempting To Do
Liam Neeson has stated that COLD PURSUIT is going to be his last action film. And, if that is the case, he certainly picked an interesting one to go out on.
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
TerraBlizzard (18 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2019
The heritage to the orignal (5 more)
Sublime acting from a majority of unknowns in the industry.
"Spices" up and make it's own mark in the Disney world.
The addition and alterations.
One liners.
Disney parks hidden in the film.
True to the orignal but a stand alone.
A must watch for all ages and with that comes a range of open doors and closed comments.
If you have seen the orignal and loved it you might find it hard to get on with. But please if you do anything before watching this addition to the live action roster Disney are working hard on, go in with no expectations as if you thought this was the original.
If you haven't seen this before then prepare for bright colour, songs that make you tap your feet and a story driven hard by characters that develope through the film.
Guy Ritchie has done a great job with keeping the roots of this film in true disney essence with putting modern twist to make it a more enjoyable watch for adults who grew up with disney. Guy has a way of bringing darkness and edge to a film, like his work on Sherlock Holmes (Another must wacth) and with this edge comes gripping depth to the story. So much so I was desperate for a toilet break but could not leave my seat as I was worried I'd miss a key part.
With the addition of 2 relative unknown leads in a well loved story was a marvellous move on the casting department. Mena Mossuod and Naomi Scott play brilliant parts and fit right into characters with the addittion of Will Smith a strong and dependable actor who you know always does a good job makes the trio stand out.
With the addition of songs and changes of genre to songs. Everything works and works well. "Speechless" a welcomed addition to the set list that empowers girls and boys to stand up and speek out agiasnt those that push them down and genre swap of "Friend like me".
For instance my favourite Disney song is "Friend like me" sung by the genie or genie's if you "wish" the hard hitting jazz number that breaks the bollywood theme. In the orignal and west end the song is similar in both. Robbin Williams and Trevor Dion Nicholas make this song their own keeping to what the disney song writter wanted and to what their good at. HOWEVER this song I don't think could ever work for Will Smith as a jazz number but by god he pulled it off as a R&B. Agiasnt popular oppion Nicholas version Is the one I love follower by both Robbins and Smith versions.
If you have ever been to a disney park you know that they believe in the story's their telling, the work and detail of everything from sets, Background details, outfits and even the god dam smells of the sweets they sell or the rides they have and even the streets you walk on. They work hard and they do it well (their not perfect but they give it a heck of a running start to get close) The same goes for their movies.
This movie wasn't a disappointment or better film for me as I don't compare it to the original.
It is a film that is done well and played well and makes you believe in it. As what all good story telling needs to do to those who watch and listen.
If you have seen the orignal and loved it you might find it hard to get on with. But please if you do anything before watching this addition to the live action roster Disney are working hard on, go in with no expectations as if you thought this was the original.
If you haven't seen this before then prepare for bright colour, songs that make you tap your feet and a story driven hard by characters that develope through the film.
Guy Ritchie has done a great job with keeping the roots of this film in true disney essence with putting modern twist to make it a more enjoyable watch for adults who grew up with disney. Guy has a way of bringing darkness and edge to a film, like his work on Sherlock Holmes (Another must wacth) and with this edge comes gripping depth to the story. So much so I was desperate for a toilet break but could not leave my seat as I was worried I'd miss a key part.
With the addition of 2 relative unknown leads in a well loved story was a marvellous move on the casting department. Mena Mossuod and Naomi Scott play brilliant parts and fit right into characters with the addittion of Will Smith a strong and dependable actor who you know always does a good job makes the trio stand out.
With the addition of songs and changes of genre to songs. Everything works and works well. "Speechless" a welcomed addition to the set list that empowers girls and boys to stand up and speek out agiasnt those that push them down and genre swap of "Friend like me".
For instance my favourite Disney song is "Friend like me" sung by the genie or genie's if you "wish" the hard hitting jazz number that breaks the bollywood theme. In the orignal and west end the song is similar in both. Robbin Williams and Trevor Dion Nicholas make this song their own keeping to what the disney song writter wanted and to what their good at. HOWEVER this song I don't think could ever work for Will Smith as a jazz number but by god he pulled it off as a R&B. Agiasnt popular oppion Nicholas version Is the one I love follower by both Robbins and Smith versions.
If you have ever been to a disney park you know that they believe in the story's their telling, the work and detail of everything from sets, Background details, outfits and even the god dam smells of the sweets they sell or the rides they have and even the streets you walk on. They work hard and they do it well (their not perfect but they give it a heck of a running start to get close) The same goes for their movies.
This movie wasn't a disappointment or better film for me as I don't compare it to the original.
It is a film that is done well and played well and makes you believe in it. As what all good story telling needs to do to those who watch and listen.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
GREAT, Visceral Space Scenes - Boring, Soap-Opera-ish Earth Scenes
Get to the largest screen you can find with the best sound system and check out FIRST MAN. The visceral spectacle of space travel is expertly captured and needs to be seen on the BIG screen while your chair vibrates from the sound. You, the audience, fwill eel like you are in the spaceship with Neil Armstrong on his way to the moon.
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
Hardy, Williams elevate mediocre material
I had lowered my expectations when entering the new Sony film VENOM for I had heard that this non-MCU Marvel film wasn't really a Marvel - or a Spiderman - film, even though it features one of the more famous characters from the Spiderman Universe, which is, of course, a Marvel property.
Confused, yet?
Well, don't be. Because this knowledge is not needed, nor (quite frankly) is it wanted as the filmmakers of Venom made a film that centers on the titular anti-hero with no real regard to his place in the Marvel Universe.
And this works well...enough. True, the plot, dialogue, situations, special effects and gadgets of this film are middle-of-the-road at best, but with the two folks at the center of this film, I started to forgive this film it's many flaws and enjoyed two Oscar-caliber Actors having a good ol' time in a Supehero movie.
Venom, of course, tells the story of...Eddie Brock..who becomes - through a merging of his body with an Alien symbiotic creature (don't worry about it, just roll with it) - becomes the titular VENOM. A being that wants to eat live creatures (most notably human heads) while the good part of Eddie tries to keep him in check and help him fight bad guys.
In lesser performance hands, this character could become silly and stupid, but in the more than capable performance by the great Tom Hardy (Bane in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES), Eddie Brock/Venom is an intriguing figure to watch on-screen. His simultaneous ability to look unnerved and hunger for live flesh while looking for a nice cool bath caused me to smirk on more than one occasion and I ended up rooting for him throughout the film.
Matching him is the great Michelle Williams (she of the 4 Oscar nominations, most recently in MANCHESTER BY THE SEA) as Eddie Brock's ex-Fiance Anne Weying. Like Hardy, Williams is elevating mediocre material to something better than the mediocrity it was destined to be. The chemistry between Williams and Hardy is evident in their bi-play with each other and I couldn't help but think "get these two into an Oscar-caliber film together and watch the sparks - and the awards - fly."
Unfortunately, Riz Ahmed as bad guy Carlton Drake is not able to rise above the material and when he is playing opposite Hardy and/or Williams, he pales in comparison and I began to realize just how weak the script by the trio of Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel is. Clearly, two of them were brought in to re-write the original (I have no idea who did what) but none of them were able to elevate the proceedings.
Nor could Director Ruben Fleischer (ZOMBIELAND) elevate things. His Direction is pedestrian at best. There is nothing really interesting going on and when the going got tough he just started to rely on the quick cut/edits that is so "en vogue" these days - and it grew tiresome.
But when I started to grow weary of the events on the screen, Hardy and Williams would show up and I began to forgive things again, even thinking during the credits scene (where they introduce the Villain for VENOM 2), I want to see Hardy and Williams play against (name deleted so as not to spoil) as the new Villain - that might be cool!
So, I'm "in" for Venom. It was "good enough" and I will come back for the next installment - and based on the Box Office of the opening weekend, there WILL BE a next installment.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Confused, yet?
Well, don't be. Because this knowledge is not needed, nor (quite frankly) is it wanted as the filmmakers of Venom made a film that centers on the titular anti-hero with no real regard to his place in the Marvel Universe.
And this works well...enough. True, the plot, dialogue, situations, special effects and gadgets of this film are middle-of-the-road at best, but with the two folks at the center of this film, I started to forgive this film it's many flaws and enjoyed two Oscar-caliber Actors having a good ol' time in a Supehero movie.
Venom, of course, tells the story of...Eddie Brock..who becomes - through a merging of his body with an Alien symbiotic creature (don't worry about it, just roll with it) - becomes the titular VENOM. A being that wants to eat live creatures (most notably human heads) while the good part of Eddie tries to keep him in check and help him fight bad guys.
In lesser performance hands, this character could become silly and stupid, but in the more than capable performance by the great Tom Hardy (Bane in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES), Eddie Brock/Venom is an intriguing figure to watch on-screen. His simultaneous ability to look unnerved and hunger for live flesh while looking for a nice cool bath caused me to smirk on more than one occasion and I ended up rooting for him throughout the film.
Matching him is the great Michelle Williams (she of the 4 Oscar nominations, most recently in MANCHESTER BY THE SEA) as Eddie Brock's ex-Fiance Anne Weying. Like Hardy, Williams is elevating mediocre material to something better than the mediocrity it was destined to be. The chemistry between Williams and Hardy is evident in their bi-play with each other and I couldn't help but think "get these two into an Oscar-caliber film together and watch the sparks - and the awards - fly."
Unfortunately, Riz Ahmed as bad guy Carlton Drake is not able to rise above the material and when he is playing opposite Hardy and/or Williams, he pales in comparison and I began to realize just how weak the script by the trio of Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel is. Clearly, two of them were brought in to re-write the original (I have no idea who did what) but none of them were able to elevate the proceedings.
Nor could Director Ruben Fleischer (ZOMBIELAND) elevate things. His Direction is pedestrian at best. There is nothing really interesting going on and when the going got tough he just started to rely on the quick cut/edits that is so "en vogue" these days - and it grew tiresome.
But when I started to grow weary of the events on the screen, Hardy and Williams would show up and I began to forgive things again, even thinking during the credits scene (where they introduce the Villain for VENOM 2), I want to see Hardy and Williams play against (name deleted so as not to spoil) as the new Villain - that might be cool!
So, I'm "in" for Venom. It was "good enough" and I will come back for the next installment - and based on the Box Office of the opening weekend, there WILL BE a next installment.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Oct 20, 2019
The cast is an impressive selection and I'll talk about some of them in a bit but first I want to mention the advertising related to the cast. Almost every poster I saw had the main cast's names plastered on it, and rightly so, but that all included Cardi B and Lizzo. I would imagine that a significant amount of people, like me, had expected to see both of their characters in a larger chunk of the film than we actually got. They were very much bit parts and giving them this poster billing seemed more like cashing in on their current success, sensible from an advertising point of view but you already had a massive cast and it really wasn't needed.
Jennifer Lopez is great. I've always enjoyed her acting, are you even watching a decent rom-com if it doesn't have her as the lead? She is so versatile and really made the contrast between Ramona's different sides work. As I mentioned at the top she is stunning, she's 50, so beautiful and can do all that twirling... excuse me while I crying into some profiteroles for a bit, won't you?
Constance Wu as Destiny gave what I thought was a fairly average performance. She nails a lot of it but her character failed to jump out at me to be remembered and being up next to Lopez didn't help that much. The partnership between Destiny and Ramona came across so well though and that bond between them was crafted particularly well by both actresses.
Elizabeth's (Julia Stiles) inclusion makes sense considering the film is based off a magazine article but all of her pieces seemed out of place and it didn't have much impact on everything for me. We cut out to her and Destiny talking during their interview but as a story it stands on its own without this and Stiles was rather wasted.
The pacing also felt a little iffy. At the beginning we get a very quick piece of the girls getting to business, I liked that we didn't have to dwell on the ins and outs of it all for too long. This wasn't the case all the way through and later there are pieces that could have benefitted from a bit of editing for length. The general feel of everything was consistent and made sense moving from the story to the interview style. One of the things that bugged me though happened when we see Elizabeth interviewing Destiny, they say the full name of one of their marks and his surname gets bleeped. It's not subtle at all, it was enough to be jarring in the scene. It could easily have been done by pixelating their mouths and using a softer bleep, it still would have been strange but it would have been better. Although I'm not sure why they included it at all.
There were some fairly good points in Hustlers but as a whole I feel like the only bits I'm likely to remember is Jennifer Lopez, Destiny and Ramona cooking, and the girls dancing the dog. We've got a story that was condensed into a magazine article that's been reformed into a larger story, some of it was probably lost in translation somewhere and we're left with a film that doesn't quite nail the landing. I am impressed that it was kept from being an excuse for half naked women on screen, it never felt like it was made sexy just to get a rise out of the audience, considering the subject matter it was definitely a possibility.
Full review posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/hustlers-movie-review.html
Jennifer Lopez is great. I've always enjoyed her acting, are you even watching a decent rom-com if it doesn't have her as the lead? She is so versatile and really made the contrast between Ramona's different sides work. As I mentioned at the top she is stunning, she's 50, so beautiful and can do all that twirling... excuse me while I crying into some profiteroles for a bit, won't you?
Constance Wu as Destiny gave what I thought was a fairly average performance. She nails a lot of it but her character failed to jump out at me to be remembered and being up next to Lopez didn't help that much. The partnership between Destiny and Ramona came across so well though and that bond between them was crafted particularly well by both actresses.
Elizabeth's (Julia Stiles) inclusion makes sense considering the film is based off a magazine article but all of her pieces seemed out of place and it didn't have much impact on everything for me. We cut out to her and Destiny talking during their interview but as a story it stands on its own without this and Stiles was rather wasted.
The pacing also felt a little iffy. At the beginning we get a very quick piece of the girls getting to business, I liked that we didn't have to dwell on the ins and outs of it all for too long. This wasn't the case all the way through and later there are pieces that could have benefitted from a bit of editing for length. The general feel of everything was consistent and made sense moving from the story to the interview style. One of the things that bugged me though happened when we see Elizabeth interviewing Destiny, they say the full name of one of their marks and his surname gets bleeped. It's not subtle at all, it was enough to be jarring in the scene. It could easily have been done by pixelating their mouths and using a softer bleep, it still would have been strange but it would have been better. Although I'm not sure why they included it at all.
There were some fairly good points in Hustlers but as a whole I feel like the only bits I'm likely to remember is Jennifer Lopez, Destiny and Ramona cooking, and the girls dancing the dog. We've got a story that was condensed into a magazine article that's been reformed into a larger story, some of it was probably lost in translation somewhere and we're left with a film that doesn't quite nail the landing. I am impressed that it was kept from being an excuse for half naked women on screen, it never felt like it was made sexy just to get a rise out of the audience, considering the subject matter it was definitely a possibility.
Full review posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/hustlers-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Promising Young Woman (2020) in Movies
Apr 18, 2021
The wait for this film was agonising, and I honestly don't know how I managed to avoid spoilers when some people on the internet were incapable of using hashtags.
Cassie can't forget the past, and the event that she's living with leaves her holding onto a taste for revenge. She doles out life lessons to those who deserve it as she looks for the way to get the ultimate revenge.
Promising Young Woman is a film I would have loved to have gone into blind. The opening sets up the rest of the film so well, but all I've been able to think is what my reaction would have been without having seen a trailer and knowing what was going to happen... it would have been horrific with a side of evil satisfaction.
Though Carey Mulligan has been in a lot of things, the only thing I can actually say I've seen her in is the Doctor Who episode, Blink... which freaks me out for obvious reasons. Her back catalogue is looking a lot more enticing after seeing her performance here. Cassandra is a thinker and a planner, and while others think she's not achieving her potential, but where she is in life gives her exactly what she needs. Mulligan snaps instantly between the two sides of Cassie's persona with such finesse that when you combine it with the production's editing and cinematography and those moments hold you in suspense for the next.
If you asked me my thoughts on Bo Burnham then I probably would have said I wasn't a fan. But actually, I only remember seeing his stand up, and I was surprised I'd seen films he's been in. Ryan was a great character, he's got that natural charm to him that made a great contrast to the other men we see throughout the film. The development in their relationship is great and follows that sort of "wholesome" and goof expectation of a "successful" dating life... admittedly, not for everyone though.
There was a large recognisable cast, but of the other actors, my main call out would be Alfred Molina. His scene with Carey Mulligan was easily one of my favourites, not just for his performance but the way his character impacts Cassie. In the rest of the cast there were some solid performances, Jennifer Coolidge definitely surprised me as I A) didn't know she was in this and B) have never seen her in a role like this before. But beyond them there were some actor/role combinations that didn't feel right to me.
Something that continually jumped out at me was the score. Great selection of songs, perfectly aligned, nice mix of styles... and that version of Toxic? Masterpiece. I adored every moment of it and I'm listening to the album right now on Spotify.
The feel of the film was a very interesting experience. The divide in Cassie's life is so clear, and I loved Madison's reaction to seeing it. The whole look shows you the drama and thriller side incredibly well and somehow managed to blend them together seamlessly. (Though as an inserted afterthought, I would have liked to have seen this in a murdery version.)
I would really like to talk about the end of the film, but won't for obvious reasons. There's a behind the scenes feature that goes into a specific point, and that attention to detail makes that scene. But in that same instance I knew what was going to happen, and I curse my brain for making it pop into my thoughts.
Promising Young Woman is a very good film, and yet again Emerald Fennell has created something darkly delightful. It embodies something that a lot of people can identify with, not just women, and I have to hope it might enlighten some people as well as entertain.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/promising-young-woman-movie-review.html
Cassie can't forget the past, and the event that she's living with leaves her holding onto a taste for revenge. She doles out life lessons to those who deserve it as she looks for the way to get the ultimate revenge.
Promising Young Woman is a film I would have loved to have gone into blind. The opening sets up the rest of the film so well, but all I've been able to think is what my reaction would have been without having seen a trailer and knowing what was going to happen... it would have been horrific with a side of evil satisfaction.
Though Carey Mulligan has been in a lot of things, the only thing I can actually say I've seen her in is the Doctor Who episode, Blink... which freaks me out for obvious reasons. Her back catalogue is looking a lot more enticing after seeing her performance here. Cassandra is a thinker and a planner, and while others think she's not achieving her potential, but where she is in life gives her exactly what she needs. Mulligan snaps instantly between the two sides of Cassie's persona with such finesse that when you combine it with the production's editing and cinematography and those moments hold you in suspense for the next.
If you asked me my thoughts on Bo Burnham then I probably would have said I wasn't a fan. But actually, I only remember seeing his stand up, and I was surprised I'd seen films he's been in. Ryan was a great character, he's got that natural charm to him that made a great contrast to the other men we see throughout the film. The development in their relationship is great and follows that sort of "wholesome" and goof expectation of a "successful" dating life... admittedly, not for everyone though.
There was a large recognisable cast, but of the other actors, my main call out would be Alfred Molina. His scene with Carey Mulligan was easily one of my favourites, not just for his performance but the way his character impacts Cassie. In the rest of the cast there were some solid performances, Jennifer Coolidge definitely surprised me as I A) didn't know she was in this and B) have never seen her in a role like this before. But beyond them there were some actor/role combinations that didn't feel right to me.
Something that continually jumped out at me was the score. Great selection of songs, perfectly aligned, nice mix of styles... and that version of Toxic? Masterpiece. I adored every moment of it and I'm listening to the album right now on Spotify.
The feel of the film was a very interesting experience. The divide in Cassie's life is so clear, and I loved Madison's reaction to seeing it. The whole look shows you the drama and thriller side incredibly well and somehow managed to blend them together seamlessly. (Though as an inserted afterthought, I would have liked to have seen this in a murdery version.)
I would really like to talk about the end of the film, but won't for obvious reasons. There's a behind the scenes feature that goes into a specific point, and that attention to detail makes that scene. But in that same instance I knew what was going to happen, and I curse my brain for making it pop into my thoughts.
Promising Young Woman is a very good film, and yet again Emerald Fennell has created something darkly delightful. It embodies something that a lot of people can identify with, not just women, and I have to hope it might enlighten some people as well as entertain.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/promising-young-woman-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2021
A little too slow and self-indulgent for my tastes
There is no denying that Edward Norton is a talented performer. Ever since he burst onto the scene with his Oscar nominated performance in PRIMAL FEAR, he has been a presence both on and off the screen as an Actor, Writer, Producer and Director.
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)