Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
New movies this year feel like both a treat and a torture, but Denzel? Gimme!
Deputy Joe Deacon is forced into confronting his past when he's sent to LA to collect some evidence. But his reluctant trip takes a turn as he gets involved in the investigation into a spate of murders. The obsession for a solution can sometimes be too much for even the most seasoned professional.
We open in 1990 in a situation that feels like it could be any time. The period doesn't feel like it holds any importance over the tale that's being told. It's almost a distraction as the opening feels like a flashback rather than just an introduction.
It has the look of a gritty crime drama/thriller. It's got the right tone, the right sort of actors, and definitely the right subject matter, but it somehow fails to engage on that level.
I love a Denzel performance, and he has this sort of genre deep in his back catalogue, it should be an easy win putting them together. It should. This one was disappointing. There doesn't seem to be much to Joe Deacon, lots gets revealed but it's never quite enough to see anything below the surface.
Rami Malek plays Jim Baker, the "new" Joe Deacon. I'm not a fan, of Malek or his character. I felt like Baker needed to be more charismatic and likeable, I found that particularly evident when I saw the press conference scene. I'm willing to admit that this is me saying the film should stick with the more traditional stereotypes of these roles, and they absolutely don't have to, but I found myself not being able to like/dislike him for the "right" reasons.
In the bad guy role we have Jared Leto, and he does creepy very well here. Out of our three main actors I would say that his performance is the best. With the other two I can see things that the characters are missing that would make an improvement (in my opinion), but here I think the thing that let him down was the films around him.
It's difficult to really point a finger at the exact issues I had with The Little Things, it may just be a combination of... the little things. (Sorry, I had to put it in somewhere.) There's character development, tense moments to make it more of a thriller, and in general, atmosphere... all missing... and while some parts of the ending were good, I don't think it gives a satisfying ending to make up for anything that came before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-little-things-movie-review.html
Deputy Joe Deacon is forced into confronting his past when he's sent to LA to collect some evidence. But his reluctant trip takes a turn as he gets involved in the investigation into a spate of murders. The obsession for a solution can sometimes be too much for even the most seasoned professional.
We open in 1990 in a situation that feels like it could be any time. The period doesn't feel like it holds any importance over the tale that's being told. It's almost a distraction as the opening feels like a flashback rather than just an introduction.
It has the look of a gritty crime drama/thriller. It's got the right tone, the right sort of actors, and definitely the right subject matter, but it somehow fails to engage on that level.
I love a Denzel performance, and he has this sort of genre deep in his back catalogue, it should be an easy win putting them together. It should. This one was disappointing. There doesn't seem to be much to Joe Deacon, lots gets revealed but it's never quite enough to see anything below the surface.
Rami Malek plays Jim Baker, the "new" Joe Deacon. I'm not a fan, of Malek or his character. I felt like Baker needed to be more charismatic and likeable, I found that particularly evident when I saw the press conference scene. I'm willing to admit that this is me saying the film should stick with the more traditional stereotypes of these roles, and they absolutely don't have to, but I found myself not being able to like/dislike him for the "right" reasons.
In the bad guy role we have Jared Leto, and he does creepy very well here. Out of our three main actors I would say that his performance is the best. With the other two I can see things that the characters are missing that would make an improvement (in my opinion), but here I think the thing that let him down was the films around him.
It's difficult to really point a finger at the exact issues I had with The Little Things, it may just be a combination of... the little things. (Sorry, I had to put it in somewhere.) There's character development, tense moments to make it more of a thriller, and in general, atmosphere... all missing... and while some parts of the ending were good, I don't think it gives a satisfying ending to make up for anything that came before.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-little-things-movie-review.html
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Baylock Residence (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Characters – Patricia Woodhouse left this house years ago, she is drawn back during the war after her sister’s death, she wants to start a new life here, because the war has taken nearly everything else from her, but the past she spent so long trying to forget has come back to haunt her, as she looks for the truth of her sister’s death. Annabel is the help around the house, she stays after Patricia requests for her to stay and help her with the transition, she does help fill in about the past, including what happened to Susanna. Susanna is the sister that has passed away, we are left to wonder what caused her death.
Performances – Kelly Goudie in the leading role isn’t the strongest leading lady, when it comes to the reaction or horror scenes, we don’t get anything bad, it’s the everyday moments which come off flatter than they should do. Sarah Wynne Kordas is the only other main cast member that does everything needed without getting the best scenes.
Story – The story here follows a woman that returns to her home after years away to deal with a family loss, only to learn that the house has a bigger secret that hasn’t been unlock just yet. This is story that plays into the idea that your past can hold answers no matter how hard you look to forget it, it does also play into the ideas that a family can have secrets which will only disturb. The pace of the story isn’t the most convincing, with large amounts of the film being stuff happening behind characters most notable Patricia, we also end up teasing an idea to what is happening, only it just gets forgotten which would have added extra dimension to an abuse victim. The war time theme doesn’t help because the same story could easily happen at any other era too.
Horror – The horror in this film comes from how Patricia is struggling with the visions that she is having, not being able to balance reality with supernatural.
Settings – The film is set within the one house, which doesn’t look time accurate from the outside, it does show how the family home can be reunited from tragedy.
Special Effects – The film does use effects sparely, when they are used they do add an element to horror in the film.
Scene of the Movie – The secret room.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The non-horror moment conversations feel out of place.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror thriller that does have moments of strong tension, only it doesn’t keep this up for long enough to make us what to learn the truth.
Overall: Slow Burning Horror.
Performances – Kelly Goudie in the leading role isn’t the strongest leading lady, when it comes to the reaction or horror scenes, we don’t get anything bad, it’s the everyday moments which come off flatter than they should do. Sarah Wynne Kordas is the only other main cast member that does everything needed without getting the best scenes.
Story – The story here follows a woman that returns to her home after years away to deal with a family loss, only to learn that the house has a bigger secret that hasn’t been unlock just yet. This is story that plays into the idea that your past can hold answers no matter how hard you look to forget it, it does also play into the ideas that a family can have secrets which will only disturb. The pace of the story isn’t the most convincing, with large amounts of the film being stuff happening behind characters most notable Patricia, we also end up teasing an idea to what is happening, only it just gets forgotten which would have added extra dimension to an abuse victim. The war time theme doesn’t help because the same story could easily happen at any other era too.
Horror – The horror in this film comes from how Patricia is struggling with the visions that she is having, not being able to balance reality with supernatural.
Settings – The film is set within the one house, which doesn’t look time accurate from the outside, it does show how the family home can be reunited from tragedy.
Special Effects – The film does use effects sparely, when they are used they do add an element to horror in the film.
Scene of the Movie – The secret room.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The non-horror moment conversations feel out of place.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror thriller that does have moments of strong tension, only it doesn’t keep this up for long enough to make us what to learn the truth.
Overall: Slow Burning Horror.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Big Sick (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Kumail (Kumail Nanjiani) is a young Pakistani American trying to make it as a stand-up comic. He spends his free time making extra money as an Uber driver and getting set up with Pakistani women by his family, in an attempt to arrange a marriage for him. Then his life changes one night when he meets an American girl named Emily (Zoe Kazan). After hooking up the night they meet they start a whirlwind relationship. But Kumail is hiding this relationship from his family, because they would disown him if they found out, and still meeting with the young women who he could potentially marry. When Emily finds this out she confronts Kumail and they break up. Kumail is depressed but felt he had to choose his family and tradition over his feelings for Emily. Then a while later he gets a frantic call in the middle of the night from one of Emily’s friends asking him to go to the Emergency Room and wait with her. When he arrives doctors are wanting to put Emily into an induced coma. With no one else around Kumail stays with Emily. Emily’s parents (played by Ray Romano and Holly Hunter) show up and know everything that happened between Kumail and Emily. It is uncomfortable but Kumail feel like he needs to stay. He is now struggling with is feelings for Emily and his culture.
The Big Sick is a film telling the real-life story of courtship of Kumail and his real life wife Emily V. Gordon, both of whom wrote screenplay. The Michael Showatler (Hello My Name is Doris) directed film is very funny and smartly paced. There is a good balance of comedy and the serious situations, including dealing with trauma and overcoming cultural differences. The cast is really good, from Hunter and Romano to comedians Aidy Bryant and Kurt Braunohler the supporting roles are really well cast and performed. Zoe Kazan was really good during her time on screen. There were times when I could tell that the dialogue was dubbed over and it was a little distracting, but only a handful of times. I also appreciated the side story of the life of a young comic. It was not a focal point of the movie but it definitely showed how Kumail struggled to become a comic and how life and his family culture sometimes got in the way of his ambition, in both good and bad ways.
Heartwarming and funny this film is original and fun to watch. It was definitely nice to be caught off guard by some really funny moments in the middle of serious situations. It has a run time of 2 hours and 4 minutes with is a little longer than average but really doesn’t feel that long.
The Big Sick is a film telling the real-life story of courtship of Kumail and his real life wife Emily V. Gordon, both of whom wrote screenplay. The Michael Showatler (Hello My Name is Doris) directed film is very funny and smartly paced. There is a good balance of comedy and the serious situations, including dealing with trauma and overcoming cultural differences. The cast is really good, from Hunter and Romano to comedians Aidy Bryant and Kurt Braunohler the supporting roles are really well cast and performed. Zoe Kazan was really good during her time on screen. There were times when I could tell that the dialogue was dubbed over and it was a little distracting, but only a handful of times. I also appreciated the side story of the life of a young comic. It was not a focal point of the movie but it definitely showed how Kumail struggled to become a comic and how life and his family culture sometimes got in the way of his ambition, in both good and bad ways.
Heartwarming and funny this film is original and fun to watch. It was definitely nice to be caught off guard by some really funny moments in the middle of serious situations. It has a run time of 2 hours and 4 minutes with is a little longer than average but really doesn’t feel that long.
Darren (1599 KP) rated In the Tall Grass (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Becky is the pregnant lady travelling across country to start a life with her baby, her maternal instincts take over when she hears a young boy calling for help in the grass, which sees her get trapped, she experiences different pregnancy problems while trying to find her way out. Cal is the protect brother, who couldn’t win a fight to save his life, he wants his sister to date somebody with a future and an education. Ross is the father of Tobin who has gone too far into the grass before, he knows what is happening making him a real threat to the rest. Tobin is the little boy that is calling out for help, he desperate cries for help lead to the events of the film as Becky and Cal go in search for the answer.
Performances – When it comes to the performances this is a hard one to hate or enjoy anybody in the film, nobody is bad, Laysla De Oliveira and Avery Whitted as the brother sister don’t have the best chemistry. Patrick Wilson does go full crazy for parts of the film and it is the best part to watch.
Story – The story here follows a group of people that lost in tall grass which seems to have a mind of itself which will see them needing to figure out how to make it out alive. This is a story that does do a lot of confusing things because we do try to capture the magic of ‘Triangle’ only for it to be way to confusing for the most part because we are going over and over through different points of view which just doesn’t give us enough to work with because a lot happens in pitch black too which doesn’t make it clear just what was happening. This is a story you could break down and figure out what happened, but it isn’t a causal watch when figuring out the loops.
Horror – The horror in the film is meant to come from the unknown in the grass and just what happens within the grass.
Settings – The film wants to use the tall grass for the settings, I guess this is an American thing for it to be scary.
Special Effects – The effects used in the film are mostly shock for gore, which are fine, but just don’t shock the way they want too.
Scene of the Movie – Ross finds a way in.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many attempts to create a reset.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that just doesn’t get to any horror levels, if you have seen ‘Triangle’ you will have seen a much more interesting and better version of this story.
Overall: Just not Triangle.
Performances – When it comes to the performances this is a hard one to hate or enjoy anybody in the film, nobody is bad, Laysla De Oliveira and Avery Whitted as the brother sister don’t have the best chemistry. Patrick Wilson does go full crazy for parts of the film and it is the best part to watch.
Story – The story here follows a group of people that lost in tall grass which seems to have a mind of itself which will see them needing to figure out how to make it out alive. This is a story that does do a lot of confusing things because we do try to capture the magic of ‘Triangle’ only for it to be way to confusing for the most part because we are going over and over through different points of view which just doesn’t give us enough to work with because a lot happens in pitch black too which doesn’t make it clear just what was happening. This is a story you could break down and figure out what happened, but it isn’t a causal watch when figuring out the loops.
Horror – The horror in the film is meant to come from the unknown in the grass and just what happens within the grass.
Settings – The film wants to use the tall grass for the settings, I guess this is an American thing for it to be scary.
Special Effects – The effects used in the film are mostly shock for gore, which are fine, but just don’t shock the way they want too.
Scene of the Movie – Ross finds a way in.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many attempts to create a reset.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that just doesn’t get to any horror levels, if you have seen ‘Triangle’ you will have seen a much more interesting and better version of this story.
Overall: Just not Triangle.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021
Suffers from Sequel-itis
If you ever heard of the term “Sequel-itis” and wondered what a good example of film suffering from this malady would be, look no further than VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE.
The sequel to the surprisingly well made - and well acted - 2018 VENOM that introduced audiences to the (sometimes) villain, (sometimes) anti-hero, VENOM and the human/symbiot that he has bonded to (it makes sense in the first film) - this sequel looks and feels like a quick “money-grab” that is keeping this character “warm” for bigger things (I hope) down the road.
Directed by famed motion capture expert, Andy Serkis, VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE feels like a movie that was directed by a Special FX veteran for this film is long on special effects and short on what makes a film work - plot and character.
And that’s too bad for the 2018 VENOM film was a surprise in that while it had it’s CGI moments (and plenty of them), it also had interesting plot and characters and took full advantage of two of the better actors working today - Tom Hardy and Michelle Williams.
The sequel looked promising enough as both Hardy and Williams were back and Woody Harrelson was cast as the main villain (with Naomi Harris along as the villain’s sidekick) so some of the ingredients were there for a quality sequel.
Unfortunately, this sequel leaned heavily into the CGI-ness of the first film and made the CGI Alien Venom the focal point of the story, relegating the humans to the back. No actor was pushed further to the back than Williams who was stuck with a weak “damsel in distress” arc while Harrelson and Harris take turns over-acting the other making their pair of villains some of the weakest in recent comic-book movies memory.
And then there is the performance of Hardy as Eddie Brock. He is sleepwalking his way through this film, looking like he has very little interest in what is going on and just wants to grab his paycheck and get home.
Some of these sins could be forgiven if the CGI elements - and the battles between Venom and Carnage - are interesting. Unfortunately, they just are not - they are “fine”, but nothing interesting or original, so this film is destined to get washed off the shore (and memory) as quickly as a sandcastle is washed away on a beach.
If you are going to check out this flick, make sure you stay for the “end credits” scene (which is only, thankfully, about 2 minutes into the credits), it is the best part of this film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The sequel to the surprisingly well made - and well acted - 2018 VENOM that introduced audiences to the (sometimes) villain, (sometimes) anti-hero, VENOM and the human/symbiot that he has bonded to (it makes sense in the first film) - this sequel looks and feels like a quick “money-grab” that is keeping this character “warm” for bigger things (I hope) down the road.
Directed by famed motion capture expert, Andy Serkis, VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE feels like a movie that was directed by a Special FX veteran for this film is long on special effects and short on what makes a film work - plot and character.
And that’s too bad for the 2018 VENOM film was a surprise in that while it had it’s CGI moments (and plenty of them), it also had interesting plot and characters and took full advantage of two of the better actors working today - Tom Hardy and Michelle Williams.
The sequel looked promising enough as both Hardy and Williams were back and Woody Harrelson was cast as the main villain (with Naomi Harris along as the villain’s sidekick) so some of the ingredients were there for a quality sequel.
Unfortunately, this sequel leaned heavily into the CGI-ness of the first film and made the CGI Alien Venom the focal point of the story, relegating the humans to the back. No actor was pushed further to the back than Williams who was stuck with a weak “damsel in distress” arc while Harrelson and Harris take turns over-acting the other making their pair of villains some of the weakest in recent comic-book movies memory.
And then there is the performance of Hardy as Eddie Brock. He is sleepwalking his way through this film, looking like he has very little interest in what is going on and just wants to grab his paycheck and get home.
Some of these sins could be forgiven if the CGI elements - and the battles between Venom and Carnage - are interesting. Unfortunately, they just are not - they are “fine”, but nothing interesting or original, so this film is destined to get washed off the shore (and memory) as quickly as a sandcastle is washed away on a beach.
If you are going to check out this flick, make sure you stay for the “end credits” scene (which is only, thankfully, about 2 minutes into the credits), it is the best part of this film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Adam Project (2022) in Movies
Mar 23, 2022
Family Friendly, fun, action/comedy
Ryan Reynolds is making a nice living, not only is he on the “A” list for such films as DEADPOOL and FREE GUY (a wonderful film that you have to check out if you haven’t seen it), He is also popping up in charming action/comedy films that go straight to Streaming on Netflix. Following the fun romp that was RED NOTICE (with Gal Gadot and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson), he is back in the Shawn Levy helmed THE ADAM PROJECT.
And while this film is not doing anything special, nor will it be nominated for any kind of awards, it is a fun, entertaining way to spend a couple of hours.
Family friendly, THE ADAM PROJECT, stars Reynolds as…you got it…Adam. A time traveling pilot who goes back in time to find his father - the inventor of time travel - and stop him. Along the way, her runs into his younger self, his mother and a very important person from Adam’s past…or rather…future…or…
You get the idea, it’s a time travel movie, so I wouldn’t get too caught up in “the rules” or dig too deeply into the plot.
Reynolds, of course, is charming as pilot Adam, ready with a laser gun and a quip. His quick wit and snappy banter is reminiscent of many, many other roles that Reynolds has played…and that is okay. He is joined by his younger self (dubbed Small Adam) who is played as a young Ryan Reynolds mimic very well by newcomer Walker Scobell. To be honest, Scobell is annoying early on in this film - and that is on purpose - for what is charming in the adult Reynolds is really annoying in a 12 year old.
Jennifer Garner (Mom), Mark Ruffalo (Dad) and Zoe Saldana (mysterious person from Adam’s past…I mean…future) are “professional” in their respective roles, bringing the right amount of whatever their character needs at the moment. Finally, surprisingly, indie film icon Catherine Keener is very good as the “bad buy” in this piece.
All of this is handled deftly by Shawn Levy (NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM). His track record shows that he knows how to do these family friendly, action/comedy/adventure films and he does not disappoint here. He moves things along at a brisk enough pace to keep all interested while throwing in comedy and snappy banter along the way.
All-in-All, a very fun way to spend a couple of hours - certainly a good way to spend a crisp Spring evening whilst waiting for the warmer weather to arrive.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And while this film is not doing anything special, nor will it be nominated for any kind of awards, it is a fun, entertaining way to spend a couple of hours.
Family friendly, THE ADAM PROJECT, stars Reynolds as…you got it…Adam. A time traveling pilot who goes back in time to find his father - the inventor of time travel - and stop him. Along the way, her runs into his younger self, his mother and a very important person from Adam’s past…or rather…future…or…
You get the idea, it’s a time travel movie, so I wouldn’t get too caught up in “the rules” or dig too deeply into the plot.
Reynolds, of course, is charming as pilot Adam, ready with a laser gun and a quip. His quick wit and snappy banter is reminiscent of many, many other roles that Reynolds has played…and that is okay. He is joined by his younger self (dubbed Small Adam) who is played as a young Ryan Reynolds mimic very well by newcomer Walker Scobell. To be honest, Scobell is annoying early on in this film - and that is on purpose - for what is charming in the adult Reynolds is really annoying in a 12 year old.
Jennifer Garner (Mom), Mark Ruffalo (Dad) and Zoe Saldana (mysterious person from Adam’s past…I mean…future) are “professional” in their respective roles, bringing the right amount of whatever their character needs at the moment. Finally, surprisingly, indie film icon Catherine Keener is very good as the “bad buy” in this piece.
All of this is handled deftly by Shawn Levy (NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM). His track record shows that he knows how to do these family friendly, action/comedy/adventure films and he does not disappoint here. He moves things along at a brisk enough pace to keep all interested while throwing in comedy and snappy banter along the way.
All-in-All, a very fun way to spend a couple of hours - certainly a good way to spend a crisp Spring evening whilst waiting for the warmer weather to arrive.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Spellbound (1945) in Movies
Jun 13, 2022
Not the First Hitchcock You Should Watch
When Dr. Anthony Edwardes arrives at a mental hospital in Vermont to replace existing hospital director, Dr. Constance Peterson quickly recognizes him as an impostor. The impostor not only comes clean but also fears he may have killed the real Edwards. It is up to the impostor and Constance to find out the truth of what really happened.
Acting: 10
Gregory Peck is one of the shining actors of the 1940’s and his performance as the impostor doesn’t disappoint. His ability to draw in emotion always manages to root my attention into a scene. Ingrid Bergman was also sensational as Dr. Peterson. The chemistry between the two actors carried the majority of the scenes.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
The characters give you just enough throughout the story to move things along. While I did hold out hope that some of the characters would be fleshed out slightly better, I didn’t mind working with what the story gave me. I can’t give away too much without fear of spoilers, but i will say that some of the backstories took an interesting turn.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Another man that doesn’t disappoint when it comes to cinematography: Alfred Hitchcock. Mans is in his bag with some really creative shots that probably surprised a 1945 audience. From dream sequences to flashbacks, Hitchcocks devotion to his craft is on full display. Definitely a strong suit of this film.
Conflict: 4
Entertainment Value: 7
At one point in my notes I wrote, “The premise is great. I think it’s the execution that is a little off.” You can see glimpses of where Spellbound wanted to take off, but it’s usually shortlived. I hung in there for the creativity of the premise, but that can only get you so far. Too many lulls and letdowns spoiled the overall experience.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 2
The talking. All the damn talking all the time. Good…Lord. The film is STUFFED with dialogue, 111 minutes of talka-talka-talka. The lack of action begins in the first twenty minutes and becomes and ongoing theme, unfortunately. “Show don’t tell” did not apply here.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 10
Despite my disappointment with how slowly things moved, the film was wrapped up nicely. It actually made me even more upset with the movie as a whole because the ending was great potential for what ALL of Spellbound should have been. This film could have done a ton of things better. The ending, though? Solid.
Overall: 69
Not my favorite Hitchcock, Spellbound misses the mark in a number of different departments. I don’t know, it left a bad taste in my mouth and left me unfulfilled. If you’re looking to work through Hitchcock’s filmography, maybe save this one for later on down the road.
Acting: 10
Gregory Peck is one of the shining actors of the 1940’s and his performance as the impostor doesn’t disappoint. His ability to draw in emotion always manages to root my attention into a scene. Ingrid Bergman was also sensational as Dr. Peterson. The chemistry between the two actors carried the majority of the scenes.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
The characters give you just enough throughout the story to move things along. While I did hold out hope that some of the characters would be fleshed out slightly better, I didn’t mind working with what the story gave me. I can’t give away too much without fear of spoilers, but i will say that some of the backstories took an interesting turn.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Another man that doesn’t disappoint when it comes to cinematography: Alfred Hitchcock. Mans is in his bag with some really creative shots that probably surprised a 1945 audience. From dream sequences to flashbacks, Hitchcocks devotion to his craft is on full display. Definitely a strong suit of this film.
Conflict: 4
Entertainment Value: 7
At one point in my notes I wrote, “The premise is great. I think it’s the execution that is a little off.” You can see glimpses of where Spellbound wanted to take off, but it’s usually shortlived. I hung in there for the creativity of the premise, but that can only get you so far. Too many lulls and letdowns spoiled the overall experience.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 2
The talking. All the damn talking all the time. Good…Lord. The film is STUFFED with dialogue, 111 minutes of talka-talka-talka. The lack of action begins in the first twenty minutes and becomes and ongoing theme, unfortunately. “Show don’t tell” did not apply here.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 10
Despite my disappointment with how slowly things moved, the film was wrapped up nicely. It actually made me even more upset with the movie as a whole because the ending was great potential for what ALL of Spellbound should have been. This film could have done a ton of things better. The ending, though? Solid.
Overall: 69
Not my favorite Hitchcock, Spellbound misses the mark in a number of different departments. I don’t know, it left a bad taste in my mouth and left me unfulfilled. If you’re looking to work through Hitchcock’s filmography, maybe save this one for later on down the road.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Words (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
On paper, The Words is a film that is better suited as a literary novella. In print, we, as readers, are often granted insight to our characters thoughts and motivation that is frequently lost on film or delivered in a lackluster voiceover that most critics deem as lazy film making. Furthermore, the story within a story, within a story approach in film often leaves the audience with uninteresting shells of characters and can make a story forgettable at best.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Given these reasons, it is easy to see why many would choose to undertake a less ambitious story for their directorial debut. That group does not include co-writer-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal. This duo is actually successful at tackling this dangerous story-within-a-story film device by keeping it simple. Focusing on the main characters of each story and their motivation, while tying each together with some common themes like love, what it means to write something great, and how far the need for success will drive the characters.
The movie begins with highly successful author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid) conducting a reading of his latest novel The Words. Among his audience is literary grad student and adoring fan, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), who has aspirations of picking the brain of the man that authored her favorite stories and perhaps getting involved romantically. As Hammond begins to read his story we are introduced to the tale of starving writer Rory Jensen (Bradley Cooper) and his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). The two are a young couple in love, trying to get on their feet while Rory struggles with multiple rejections of his novels, until he is finally forced to come to grips with his own limitations as an artist and a writer.
As he settles into life and a job as a mail clerk at a publishing firm, he finds a lost manuscript in a vintage leather briefcase that Dora had purchased for him during their honeymoon in Paris. That story turns out to be something that moves him to tears. It is the final thing in his realization that he will never be the great writer that he thought he was, the great writer that wrote this anonymous story. In an effort to feel and try to understand what it is like to create something great, Rory decides to retype the novel word for word on his laptop if only to admire the beautiful story that he had instantly fallen in love with. When Dora mistakenly reads the novel, she encourages him to submit it to a publisher. Before he can tell her the truth, his world is transformed into the life he had always imagined he would have for himself and Dora as the novel gains him both great literary and commercial success. And finally, now that his star has risen he can get his own novel published.
Enter Jeremy Irons as the old man who reveals himself to Rory as the true author of his story. The old man feels compelled to explain to Rory the tragic origin of the story that has become the young author’s success. Irons steals every second he is on screen as his delivery of the old man oozes with the intellectual style that has been his trademark over the years. Like Rory, we are helpless to do nothing but listen and get lost in the words of his story as if he was sitting next to us and telling the story in real life.
The old man reveals that the novel is the result of great love and pain that his younger self (Ben Barnes) and the love of his life Celia (Nora Arnezeder) endured. While I am not familiar with Barnes’ and Arnezeder’s work, their performance as the younger couple in Irons’ story had a genuine connection. And while this love story does not seem to be anything new when it comes to film, it served its purpose by strengthening the other stories, showing how a great story can be mused from someplace unexpected, even if only once.
With Rory now confronted with his deceitful success, he struggles to decide how to make things right and live with himself as a fraud. It’s at this point the film subtly suggest that Hammond’s story of Rory may actually be a disguised autobiography.
As Rory, Bradley Cooper gives perhaps his best performance to date. I feel that despite his poor and deceitful decision, at no point does he lose the audience. With the help of a strong and emotionally charged performance by Zoe Saldana, we experience Cooper’s honest plight and can understand the events that unfold around him. He is effective as a man who genuinely believes he does not deserve the success that he stole. Without a doubt, this will be a surprising role for those fans who only know Cooper from the humorous characters he plays in The Hangover and most recently Hit and Run. I hope this is the beginning of growth in his craft beyond the charming, confident character we have seen in Limitless and perhaps into a deeper emotional actor.
The weakest part of this film is the story of Clay Hammond and Daniella. Dennis Quaid is quite unlikable as Hammond. He is monotone in his readings and the prose of his story is mediocre at best. While the film drops hints that Hammond’s story of Rory is autobiographical it makes sense that Quaid’s character is played this way. He succeeds in helping create the notion that Hammond is unworthy of the success his character has enjoyed. But something about his performance is so unlikable that even when his character has a redeeming moment, it is lost on an audience that may not care enough about him for it to work.
To add to this dislike of Quaid, Olivia Wilde seems out of place as the character Daniella. It is not that her performance is bad, it is just that every time they showed her as the starry-eyed fan who is love struck for Hammond, she just seemed out of place. Additionally there did not seem to be any connection between Daniella and Hammond in the way the other characters’ connections helped strengthen their performances.
In the end, I enjoyed this movie more than I expected. Visually the Montreal backdrop does an excellent job as both New York and Paris. And the continual piano score helps blend the stories. The simple focus on the main characters helped maintain the three different stories and keep the overall pacing of the movie in order. In addition, the solid to exceptional performances also helped to keep the film focused and avoided the empty shell of characters that most movies of this nature create. That being said, this movie is not for everyone, but those looking for a change of pace from the summer blockbusters season should consider this film.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
I have had my issues with Spike Lee as a filmmaker over the years. It always seemed like his next film was the most “important” one, and that he didn’t make a film if it didn’t have something to say about race and the oppression of African Americans. Which in itself is not a problem, as long as that point isn’t laboured to the detriment of all other aspects of the film. My problem wasn’t the message, it was that a lot of the films were dull or just not that great.
I like Malcolm X to a point, but it is overlong and uneven. I think Do the Right Thing is a fine example of indie bravura, but also has faults. Of the rest, I really only rate 25th Hour and Inside Man, both of which are entertaining movies that move tentatively away from full on politics and therefore avoid the trap of being bombastic. In short, I’ve always wanted to like him as a director a lot more than I do.
The thing that drew me to BlacKkKlansman more than Lee, or the yet little known John David Washington, was the 100% dependable Adam Driver. I have yet to see a performance of his I didn’t like, and I’d heard that he was the standout of this film too, so it went on my list of must sees. And, yes, he is excellent, of course he is – there’s something about how easy and relaxed he can be within a character that is very rare. I’d suggest he is one of the very best male actors of that age group working today.
Now, obviously, it is entirely intentional that the two leads and eventual partners in the film are black and white… but the idea that this is a problem, or a thing at all, is not addressed as the only issue; in BlacKkKlansman it isn’t being black or white or anything else that defines you, it is what you do, what you say and what you stand for. And that idea is so crystal clear and well achieved that as an entertainment the film can then go anywhere it wants around that framework. Which it revels in doing.
It is both a good looking film and an exciting one; funny when it wants to be, smart all the time, and razor serious when it needs to be. A balancing act not to be sniffed at! And one that Lee has struggled with in the past. Here he nails the tone so well that it feels like his entire back catalogue was just a training exercise to get him to this point. I wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece, but it is a damn fine work of art on many levels.
Washington as the focus of the tale, which also functions perfectly as an undercover cop movie of basic intent, i.e. infiltrate the bad guys and take them down, is perfectly cast and believable from minute one. His chemistry with the insanely gorgeous and talented Laura Harrier is a highlight, especially watching them dance and move with absolute cool in those 70s clothes and hairstyles. This movie has serious style that leaves you in no doubt that the black sub-culture is where it’s at, and the stupid bigoted klansmen are shown up as ridiculous as much as dangerous.
Every trope and icon of the Blacksploitation era is referenced and reclaimed as cool. Perhaps to a degree I am not aware of, as I’ve only seen one or two obvious examples in my time. We are given the tease to follow the notion that racism of this kind was a thing of the past, specifically related to the 70s and now it’s better in many ways. Before we are hit with the hammer blow of realisation at the very end of the film, where a juxtaposition of fantasy and horrific reality collide to magnificently shocking and depressing effect.
I felt after seeing it that I had been cleverly schooled. As in, I’m glad you enjoyed this, now go away and really think about it… and it worked, because I have tried to think about it more than I have before. And feel just that little bit more educated to a problem that is worldwide, but has never really felt directly part of my world.
Discussing anything related to the BLM movement in 2020 feels important and complicated in so many ways. It is an emotive subject that I’d feel I mostly want to avoid for fear of saying the wrong thing. Even though the basic idea of human rights and basic rights for all people has always been a no brainer; prejudice and hate crimes and fear are wrong, and we collectively must do whatever we can to educate ourselves and others not to make the mistakes of the past. Can a movie do that? No of course not, but it can open the door to dialogue that might not have happened otherwise.
Lee isn’t scared of what you think of this film, or any argument you may have against it. He knows his subject, and you feel that confidence in every scene. He doesn’t want to lecture you, or scream at you in despair, he wants to tell you an entertaining story that comes with a whole side discussion if you want it. Which is so much more powerful than any tactic he has tried before. And I think it works. I’d recommend anyone watch this, without hesitation.
I like Malcolm X to a point, but it is overlong and uneven. I think Do the Right Thing is a fine example of indie bravura, but also has faults. Of the rest, I really only rate 25th Hour and Inside Man, both of which are entertaining movies that move tentatively away from full on politics and therefore avoid the trap of being bombastic. In short, I’ve always wanted to like him as a director a lot more than I do.
The thing that drew me to BlacKkKlansman more than Lee, or the yet little known John David Washington, was the 100% dependable Adam Driver. I have yet to see a performance of his I didn’t like, and I’d heard that he was the standout of this film too, so it went on my list of must sees. And, yes, he is excellent, of course he is – there’s something about how easy and relaxed he can be within a character that is very rare. I’d suggest he is one of the very best male actors of that age group working today.
Now, obviously, it is entirely intentional that the two leads and eventual partners in the film are black and white… but the idea that this is a problem, or a thing at all, is not addressed as the only issue; in BlacKkKlansman it isn’t being black or white or anything else that defines you, it is what you do, what you say and what you stand for. And that idea is so crystal clear and well achieved that as an entertainment the film can then go anywhere it wants around that framework. Which it revels in doing.
It is both a good looking film and an exciting one; funny when it wants to be, smart all the time, and razor serious when it needs to be. A balancing act not to be sniffed at! And one that Lee has struggled with in the past. Here he nails the tone so well that it feels like his entire back catalogue was just a training exercise to get him to this point. I wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece, but it is a damn fine work of art on many levels.
Washington as the focus of the tale, which also functions perfectly as an undercover cop movie of basic intent, i.e. infiltrate the bad guys and take them down, is perfectly cast and believable from minute one. His chemistry with the insanely gorgeous and talented Laura Harrier is a highlight, especially watching them dance and move with absolute cool in those 70s clothes and hairstyles. This movie has serious style that leaves you in no doubt that the black sub-culture is where it’s at, and the stupid bigoted klansmen are shown up as ridiculous as much as dangerous.
Every trope and icon of the Blacksploitation era is referenced and reclaimed as cool. Perhaps to a degree I am not aware of, as I’ve only seen one or two obvious examples in my time. We are given the tease to follow the notion that racism of this kind was a thing of the past, specifically related to the 70s and now it’s better in many ways. Before we are hit with the hammer blow of realisation at the very end of the film, where a juxtaposition of fantasy and horrific reality collide to magnificently shocking and depressing effect.
I felt after seeing it that I had been cleverly schooled. As in, I’m glad you enjoyed this, now go away and really think about it… and it worked, because I have tried to think about it more than I have before. And feel just that little bit more educated to a problem that is worldwide, but has never really felt directly part of my world.
Discussing anything related to the BLM movement in 2020 feels important and complicated in so many ways. It is an emotive subject that I’d feel I mostly want to avoid for fear of saying the wrong thing. Even though the basic idea of human rights and basic rights for all people has always been a no brainer; prejudice and hate crimes and fear are wrong, and we collectively must do whatever we can to educate ourselves and others not to make the mistakes of the past. Can a movie do that? No of course not, but it can open the door to dialogue that might not have happened otherwise.
Lee isn’t scared of what you think of this film, or any argument you may have against it. He knows his subject, and you feel that confidence in every scene. He doesn’t want to lecture you, or scream at you in despair, he wants to tell you an entertaining story that comes with a whole side discussion if you want it. Which is so much more powerful than any tactic he has tried before. And I think it works. I’d recommend anyone watch this, without hesitation.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
First off I want to address the elephant in the room, or more accurately, the serial killer in the room. Kudos to Cineworld for always engaging in dressing up banter for their movies, but honestly, I don't need to be tormented by them during the movie too. We're all familiar with the hovering member of staff who checks the screens during the performance. When the titles started to role on Halloween I was aware of the lurking figure, unlike other times though when I glanced out of the corner of my eye I wasn't greeted with the friendly face of an employee but rather the mask-clad face of a serial killer. At least he wasn't creeping up on me otherwise I would have unleashed the power of my flying handbag... you try and scare people there WILL be consequences! Saying that I would love them to re-release Scream so I could dress up as Ghostface and just tilt my head at people.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.