Search
The Book Smugglers: Partisans, Poets, and the Race to Save Jewish Treasures from the Nazis
Book
The Book Smugglers is the nearly unbelievable story of ghetto residents who rescued thousands of...
history
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Team America: World Police (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With world tensions at an all time high with the very real threat of terrorism, the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, have rushed to the rescue with a biting political and social satire named “Team America: World Police”.
The film is a puppet movie based upon the old Thunderbirds television show about a team of specialists who fight to save the world from all manner of threats both real and imagined. The story is told entirely by puppets and miniatures which allows Stone and Parker to push the boundaries much further than they would be allowed to with live actors and in doing so, give the audience some of the deepest albeit raunchiest laughs seen in a long time.
The story opens with Team America battling the terrorists in Paris. Ever quick on the trigger, the team is able to stop the deployment of a weapon of mass destruction but in the process much of the cities famed landmarks fall from collateral damage.
Forced to find a new team member, the leader of Team America, Spottswoode recruits a stage actor named Gary Johnston to join the team and infiltrate the terrorist organization to learn what new attacks are being planned.
While this is seen as a good move by the team, there are parts of the team that are unsure of this as one in particular does not trust actors and thinks that he will escalate an already volatile situation. Undaunted, the team sets off for Cairo Egypt and eventually leaves a trail of mayhem and destruction in their path.
It is at this point that the real story of the films kicks into gear. It is learned that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is working with the terrorists to plot the ultimate attack and have convinced a cadre of Hollywood actors to attend a peace conference with other world leaders in an attempt to undermine Team America.
In between battles, Team America has plenty of time to take on other concerns such as love, self-doubt, personal issues, and suspicions, some of which result in a side-splitting sex scene that will soon become legend, as even though it involved puppets, it has to be severely edited in order to avoid an NC-17 rating. As it stands, it is one of the funniest moments in cinematic history and worth the price of admission alone.
The film does a good job of mixing comedy and commentary without ever drawing a line and saying this is how it is. We see Team America as a gun happy bunch, but we are also shown that they are true patriots who are willing to do what it takes to keep the country safe. Such is the genius of Parker and Stone as they are able to create a biting social commentary that makes you aware of issues without pounding the audience over their heads with the creator’s viewpoints. Instead the audience is given a situation and watch things taken to highly comical levels in an effort to entertain. People are free to draw their own conclusions and interpretations of the messages in the film as despite your beliefs or political leanings, we all laugh. There will be those that take umbrage to the crude humor and language, and others will not like what they may call a right-wing message. Instead I looked at the film as a very funny comedy with solid social commentary.
The only fault I had with the film is that it does drag a bit about ¾ in before getting to the final confrontations but those are well worth the wait. The film also parodies many action films and it is fun to try to try to uncover which film is being parodied. The puppets themselves are very impressive as their movements and facial expressions are easily the best ever captured on film.
The film is a puppet movie based upon the old Thunderbirds television show about a team of specialists who fight to save the world from all manner of threats both real and imagined. The story is told entirely by puppets and miniatures which allows Stone and Parker to push the boundaries much further than they would be allowed to with live actors and in doing so, give the audience some of the deepest albeit raunchiest laughs seen in a long time.
The story opens with Team America battling the terrorists in Paris. Ever quick on the trigger, the team is able to stop the deployment of a weapon of mass destruction but in the process much of the cities famed landmarks fall from collateral damage.
Forced to find a new team member, the leader of Team America, Spottswoode recruits a stage actor named Gary Johnston to join the team and infiltrate the terrorist organization to learn what new attacks are being planned.
While this is seen as a good move by the team, there are parts of the team that are unsure of this as one in particular does not trust actors and thinks that he will escalate an already volatile situation. Undaunted, the team sets off for Cairo Egypt and eventually leaves a trail of mayhem and destruction in their path.
It is at this point that the real story of the films kicks into gear. It is learned that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is working with the terrorists to plot the ultimate attack and have convinced a cadre of Hollywood actors to attend a peace conference with other world leaders in an attempt to undermine Team America.
In between battles, Team America has plenty of time to take on other concerns such as love, self-doubt, personal issues, and suspicions, some of which result in a side-splitting sex scene that will soon become legend, as even though it involved puppets, it has to be severely edited in order to avoid an NC-17 rating. As it stands, it is one of the funniest moments in cinematic history and worth the price of admission alone.
The film does a good job of mixing comedy and commentary without ever drawing a line and saying this is how it is. We see Team America as a gun happy bunch, but we are also shown that they are true patriots who are willing to do what it takes to keep the country safe. Such is the genius of Parker and Stone as they are able to create a biting social commentary that makes you aware of issues without pounding the audience over their heads with the creator’s viewpoints. Instead the audience is given a situation and watch things taken to highly comical levels in an effort to entertain. People are free to draw their own conclusions and interpretations of the messages in the film as despite your beliefs or political leanings, we all laugh. There will be those that take umbrage to the crude humor and language, and others will not like what they may call a right-wing message. Instead I looked at the film as a very funny comedy with solid social commentary.
The only fault I had with the film is that it does drag a bit about ¾ in before getting to the final confrontations but those are well worth the wait. The film also parodies many action films and it is fun to try to try to uncover which film is being parodied. The puppets themselves are very impressive as their movements and facial expressions are easily the best ever captured on film.
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated A Very Austen Valentine in Books
Nov 4, 2019
ix beloved authors deliver romantic Valentine novellas set in Jane Austens Regency world. Robin Helm, Laura Hile, Wendi Sotis, and Barbara Cornthwaite, together with Susan Kaye and Mandy Cook, share variations of Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion, and Sense and Sensibility, featuring your favorite characters in sequels, adaptations, and spinoffs of Austens adored novels. Experience uplifting romance, laugh-out-loud humor, and poignant regret as these authors deftly tug on your heartstrings this Valentines Day.
I Dream of You by Robin Helm
Newly-married Elizabeth Darcy has a plan: to charm her too-busy husband into desiring her company as much as he did when he was courting her. A series of romantic dreams gives her just the push she needs to put that plan into action.
Sir Walter Takes a Wife by Laura Hile
Faced with a lonely future and finding himself strapped for cash, Persuasions Sir Walter Elliot manfully decides to marry again. But his careful plans go sadly awry! A lighthearted Valentine mash-up featuring two of Jane Austens worst snobs.
My Forever Valentine by Wendi Sotis
Jane and Charles Bingley have married, even though Miss Elizabeth Bennet remains certain Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy gave his best effort to keep them apart. After Mr. Darcy refused to stand up with Bingley and did not attend the wedding, she despises the gentleman more than ever and finds his company intolerable. How will she endure her visit to Kent if Mr. Darcy turns up everywhere she goes?
Pretence and Prejudice by Barbara Cornthwaite
A chance encounter with a handsome stranger forces Elizabeth to resort to subterfuge in order to discover his true intentions.
My Valentine by Mandy H. Cook Mandy H. Cook
Little Charlotte was always determined and independent, traits which served her well as she battled a serious childhood illness and later as she took on Polite Society. Will those traits now deprive her of true love? Or would her lifelong Valentine win her heart?
The Lovers Ruse by Susan Kaye
In this Persuasion alteration, Anne is so altered by Wentworths love in the summer of 1806, she refuses to give him up when both her godmother and father try to persuade her. The Lovers Rusefollows Frederick and Anne through their whirlwind courtship and their secret engagement. When Wentworth returns for his Annie girl, the cat comes out of the bag.
My Thoughts: These six charming novellas centered around Valentines will entice all those who adore Jane Austen's writings. Based on characters from Jane Austen's novels; I enjoyed reading into the lives of the Darcy's; I was impressed that the writers Robin Helm, Wendi Sotis and Mandy H. Cook are all centered their novellas around the same family. Each storytelling its own unique view of their lives.
Each story is fun to read, and takes the reader back to a simpler time, of love, romance, and proper etiquette. Each story has it's own charm and brings the reader closer to the characters.
My favorites have to be the novellas containing the characters Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam Darcy, my absolute favorite being "I Dream of You". In this novella we learn how to give rather than to receive and the joys we can draw from each act of kindness.
If you love historical fiction, and Jane Austen novels, then this is certainly a book for you.
I Dream of You by Robin Helm
Newly-married Elizabeth Darcy has a plan: to charm her too-busy husband into desiring her company as much as he did when he was courting her. A series of romantic dreams gives her just the push she needs to put that plan into action.
Sir Walter Takes a Wife by Laura Hile
Faced with a lonely future and finding himself strapped for cash, Persuasions Sir Walter Elliot manfully decides to marry again. But his careful plans go sadly awry! A lighthearted Valentine mash-up featuring two of Jane Austens worst snobs.
My Forever Valentine by Wendi Sotis
Jane and Charles Bingley have married, even though Miss Elizabeth Bennet remains certain Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy gave his best effort to keep them apart. After Mr. Darcy refused to stand up with Bingley and did not attend the wedding, she despises the gentleman more than ever and finds his company intolerable. How will she endure her visit to Kent if Mr. Darcy turns up everywhere she goes?
Pretence and Prejudice by Barbara Cornthwaite
A chance encounter with a handsome stranger forces Elizabeth to resort to subterfuge in order to discover his true intentions.
My Valentine by Mandy H. Cook Mandy H. Cook
Little Charlotte was always determined and independent, traits which served her well as she battled a serious childhood illness and later as she took on Polite Society. Will those traits now deprive her of true love? Or would her lifelong Valentine win her heart?
The Lovers Ruse by Susan Kaye
In this Persuasion alteration, Anne is so altered by Wentworths love in the summer of 1806, she refuses to give him up when both her godmother and father try to persuade her. The Lovers Rusefollows Frederick and Anne through their whirlwind courtship and their secret engagement. When Wentworth returns for his Annie girl, the cat comes out of the bag.
My Thoughts: These six charming novellas centered around Valentines will entice all those who adore Jane Austen's writings. Based on characters from Jane Austen's novels; I enjoyed reading into the lives of the Darcy's; I was impressed that the writers Robin Helm, Wendi Sotis and Mandy H. Cook are all centered their novellas around the same family. Each storytelling its own unique view of their lives.
Each story is fun to read, and takes the reader back to a simpler time, of love, romance, and proper etiquette. Each story has it's own charm and brings the reader closer to the characters.
My favorites have to be the novellas containing the characters Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam Darcy, my absolute favorite being "I Dream of You". In this novella we learn how to give rather than to receive and the joys we can draw from each act of kindness.
If you love historical fiction, and Jane Austen novels, then this is certainly a book for you.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The United States vs. Billie Holiday (2021) in Movies
Apr 16, 2021
Spasmodic biopic anchored by an astonishing performance by Andra Day
It's the late 40's in the US. We follow the distressing story of Billie Holiday (Andra Day) through her period of fame and drug addiction, while constantly pursued by Harry Anslinger (Garrett Hedlund) of the FBI. The reason? Holiday kept repeatedly singing the song "Strange Fruit" at her concerts, seen as being incendiary in support of the emerging civil rights movement. While surrounded by exploitative men, can she escape the destructive cycle and find true love with her "soldier boy" Jimmy Fletcher (Trevante Rhodes).
Positives:
- Andra Day. My word! What an acting performance from the lady. Apart from a small role in the Chadwick Boseman movie "Marshall", this is her live-action feature debut. Talk about knocking it out of the park! This is a raw and very brave performance (in terms of the degree of passion and nudity required. And that's even before you take into account that she is rendering all of Billie Holiday's songs in pitch-perfect fashion. Astonishing. With a Golden Globe win under her belt, it could be an interesting battle for the Oscar between her and Frances McDormand later in the month.
- There is zero sugar-coating on this version of Holiday's biopic. Various scenes in here, especially a drug-induced retelling of the alleged origins of "Strange Fruit", are harrowing and leave a lasting impression. For the second time in a week (the other being "The Mauritanian"), I am left angry about the racism and injustice present in the US systems of government. (An astonishing caption at the end of the film - regarding a 2020 senate bill - left me speechless). Much of the movie's content is based on truth: there is a nice "fact vs fiction" summary here on collider.com.
- Elements of the story are very moving. A love-making scene (very much as opposed to a sex scene) between Billie and Jimmy is sensitively handled: like seeing an abused dog finally being shown some kindness. (Well - I was moved anyway).
- Production design for the movie (by Daniel Dorrance) is fabulous, with sets such as the Café Society brimming with 40's style.
Negatives:
- Sadly, for all of its positives, the overall concoction is a bit of a muddle. Nothing flows terribly well, and the script hops around all over the place. This left me - while never totally disengaged - feeling a bit bored and restless at times.
- I KNOW that it was common parlance at the time, but the excessive use of the "N-word" throughout the film is bound to upset some watchers.
- The movie is just SOOOO gritty and downbeat, that it left me feeling angry and upset after watching it.
Summary Thoughts: As a biopic, it comes across as jerky and spasmodic. It has moments of genius, particularly in some of the musical performances. But there are also spells where it fails to fully engage. If I was rating this purely on its content, it would probably be a 5/10. But you just can't ignore the quality here of Andra Day's performance. So for that reason, I have added 2 extra stars into the rating.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/16/the-united-states-vs-billie-holiday-strange-fruit-hangin-from-the-poplar-trees/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Andra Day. My word! What an acting performance from the lady. Apart from a small role in the Chadwick Boseman movie "Marshall", this is her live-action feature debut. Talk about knocking it out of the park! This is a raw and very brave performance (in terms of the degree of passion and nudity required. And that's even before you take into account that she is rendering all of Billie Holiday's songs in pitch-perfect fashion. Astonishing. With a Golden Globe win under her belt, it could be an interesting battle for the Oscar between her and Frances McDormand later in the month.
- There is zero sugar-coating on this version of Holiday's biopic. Various scenes in here, especially a drug-induced retelling of the alleged origins of "Strange Fruit", are harrowing and leave a lasting impression. For the second time in a week (the other being "The Mauritanian"), I am left angry about the racism and injustice present in the US systems of government. (An astonishing caption at the end of the film - regarding a 2020 senate bill - left me speechless). Much of the movie's content is based on truth: there is a nice "fact vs fiction" summary here on collider.com.
- Elements of the story are very moving. A love-making scene (very much as opposed to a sex scene) between Billie and Jimmy is sensitively handled: like seeing an abused dog finally being shown some kindness. (Well - I was moved anyway).
- Production design for the movie (by Daniel Dorrance) is fabulous, with sets such as the Café Society brimming with 40's style.
Negatives:
- Sadly, for all of its positives, the overall concoction is a bit of a muddle. Nothing flows terribly well, and the script hops around all over the place. This left me - while never totally disengaged - feeling a bit bored and restless at times.
- I KNOW that it was common parlance at the time, but the excessive use of the "N-word" throughout the film is bound to upset some watchers.
- The movie is just SOOOO gritty and downbeat, that it left me feeling angry and upset after watching it.
Summary Thoughts: As a biopic, it comes across as jerky and spasmodic. It has moments of genius, particularly in some of the musical performances. But there are also spells where it fails to fully engage. If I was rating this purely on its content, it would probably be a 5/10. But you just can't ignore the quality here of Andra Day's performance. So for that reason, I have added 2 extra stars into the rating.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/16/the-united-states-vs-billie-holiday-strange-fruit-hangin-from-the-poplar-trees/. Thanks.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mortal Engines (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Take a moment and imagine a world where most of humanity has been wiped off the map and those that remain are forced to survive on the remaining resources of a civilization that has been torn apart. In this new existence, leftover technology is coveted like diamonds and massive predator cities prey on weaker smaller cities to steal whatever meager resources they still possess. This is the world of Mortal Engines, the latest Peter Jackson blockbuster based on the young adult novel of the same name by Philip Reeves.
Mortal Engines takes place roughly a thousand years after the conclusion of the Sixty Minute War that decimated the earth and now civilization has banded into two very distinct groups. There are those in the “Traction Cities”, which are behemoth mobile cities that scour what remains of Europe gobbling up smaller cities to convert them and their resources into fuel that keeps the larger cities moving. Then there is the Anti-Traction League, a group that believes in preserving what little resources remain and living in “Traction-less” cities…a.k.a. cities built on land. London is the main Traction City and it is led by Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving) and his desire to tear down a great wall that is the only barrier between London and the surplus of resources that he so desperately needs.
After London devours one of the smaller cities, we are introduced to Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), whose one goal in life is to kill Thaddeus Valentine, the man who murdered her mother. After her failed assassination attempt on his life, she teams up with historian Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan) to not only survive, but also to prevent Valentine’s plan to recreate the war that took down humanity in the first place. This is a big job for the unlikely duo and on top of everything else, Hester is being hunted by a zombie/terminator hybrid named Shrike who wants nothing more than to kill her.
If it sounds like a lot to follow over the course of the two hours and nine-minute run time, you’d be right. In fact, without a lot of backstory which those who have read the novels will really benefit from, it can be a bit too much to take in. It comes across as a combination of Mad Max and the video game Dishonored, but it is lacking an excellent story to back up all of the post-apocalyptic action. That’s not to say that the story is bad, but it is by far the weakest part of the film and a huge missed opportunity to elevate a pretty good movie to the classic Peter Jackson masterpiece status we usually get from him. Considering the genius of Mr. Jackson this movie could have been so much more.
But now on to the good stuff…
Visually speaking Mortal Engines is a true work of art. Taking the steampunk Victorian era backdrop and adding in large mobile cities crashing through trees and forests gives us visuals that are not only magnificent, but also awe inspiring. I was lucky enough to see Mortal Engines in IMAX and the larger screen only helped to emphasize how truly awesome these large rolling cities are. This is a movie that is meant to be seen on the big screen, and with Mortal Engines, the bigger the better. The sound design matches the visuals in its epic scale, as it is loud and menacing. You can actually feel the rumble of the large treads as they move across the earth, and the crunching of smaller cities as the massive cities devour all that crosses their path. The casting and the acting were another positive as the good characters were ones you wanted to root for and the bad characters you hope would get what’s coming to them. All in all, there is quite a bit to like in this film and if nothing else you are sure to have a good time taking in all of the scenery.
In summary, Mortal Engines is a movie that feels as though it had so much potential but couldn’t quite live up to it. It definitely feels more like a summer blockbuster, full of explosions and action, instead of the deeper holiday releases that we usually get around this time. It’s the kind of movie that you go to see for the sheer spectacle of it all as long as you are willing to overlook any plot or story depth. Unfortunately, this leaves the quandary of whether or not it’s worth the full price of admission (or even more if you are planning to see it in IMAX) and my answer to that is…it depends. If you have any interest in seeing it at all then Mortal Engines is definitely a movie you should see on the big screen. On the other hand, it might be worth it to just wait to see it on pay-per-view or Blu-ray even though it may lose a lot of what makes the movie so much fun in the first place. While the movie could have been better, I have definitely seen worse and if the idea of massive rolling cities and steampunk set pieces are your thing, then Mortal Engines is certainly worth a look.
Mortal Engines takes place roughly a thousand years after the conclusion of the Sixty Minute War that decimated the earth and now civilization has banded into two very distinct groups. There are those in the “Traction Cities”, which are behemoth mobile cities that scour what remains of Europe gobbling up smaller cities to convert them and their resources into fuel that keeps the larger cities moving. Then there is the Anti-Traction League, a group that believes in preserving what little resources remain and living in “Traction-less” cities…a.k.a. cities built on land. London is the main Traction City and it is led by Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving) and his desire to tear down a great wall that is the only barrier between London and the surplus of resources that he so desperately needs.
After London devours one of the smaller cities, we are introduced to Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), whose one goal in life is to kill Thaddeus Valentine, the man who murdered her mother. After her failed assassination attempt on his life, she teams up with historian Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan) to not only survive, but also to prevent Valentine’s plan to recreate the war that took down humanity in the first place. This is a big job for the unlikely duo and on top of everything else, Hester is being hunted by a zombie/terminator hybrid named Shrike who wants nothing more than to kill her.
If it sounds like a lot to follow over the course of the two hours and nine-minute run time, you’d be right. In fact, without a lot of backstory which those who have read the novels will really benefit from, it can be a bit too much to take in. It comes across as a combination of Mad Max and the video game Dishonored, but it is lacking an excellent story to back up all of the post-apocalyptic action. That’s not to say that the story is bad, but it is by far the weakest part of the film and a huge missed opportunity to elevate a pretty good movie to the classic Peter Jackson masterpiece status we usually get from him. Considering the genius of Mr. Jackson this movie could have been so much more.
But now on to the good stuff…
Visually speaking Mortal Engines is a true work of art. Taking the steampunk Victorian era backdrop and adding in large mobile cities crashing through trees and forests gives us visuals that are not only magnificent, but also awe inspiring. I was lucky enough to see Mortal Engines in IMAX and the larger screen only helped to emphasize how truly awesome these large rolling cities are. This is a movie that is meant to be seen on the big screen, and with Mortal Engines, the bigger the better. The sound design matches the visuals in its epic scale, as it is loud and menacing. You can actually feel the rumble of the large treads as they move across the earth, and the crunching of smaller cities as the massive cities devour all that crosses their path. The casting and the acting were another positive as the good characters were ones you wanted to root for and the bad characters you hope would get what’s coming to them. All in all, there is quite a bit to like in this film and if nothing else you are sure to have a good time taking in all of the scenery.
In summary, Mortal Engines is a movie that feels as though it had so much potential but couldn’t quite live up to it. It definitely feels more like a summer blockbuster, full of explosions and action, instead of the deeper holiday releases that we usually get around this time. It’s the kind of movie that you go to see for the sheer spectacle of it all as long as you are willing to overlook any plot or story depth. Unfortunately, this leaves the quandary of whether or not it’s worth the full price of admission (or even more if you are planning to see it in IMAX) and my answer to that is…it depends. If you have any interest in seeing it at all then Mortal Engines is definitely a movie you should see on the big screen. On the other hand, it might be worth it to just wait to see it on pay-per-view or Blu-ray even though it may lose a lot of what makes the movie so much fun in the first place. While the movie could have been better, I have definitely seen worse and if the idea of massive rolling cities and steampunk set pieces are your thing, then Mortal Engines is certainly worth a look.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Foxcatcher (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
‘Foxcatcher’ stars Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell, Sienna Miller, and Vanessa Redgrave with an appearance by Anthony Michael Hall and tells an account of Olympic Gold Medal Wrestling Champions, brothers Mark and Dave Schultz and their dealings with their millionaire coach, paranoid-schizophrenic John du Pont who eventually murdered Dave Schultz in 1996.
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hillbilly Elegy (2020) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Decent - with 3 strong female performances
Glenn Close is one of the most lauded Actresses of our time and her current streak of 7 Academy Award nominations without a win is a record. It would be ironic, indeed, if she would win her first Oscar with this, her 8th Oscar nomination, this time as Best Supporting Actress in HILLBILLY ELEGY.
Written by Vanessa Taylor and based on the book (and true story) by J.D. Vance, HILLBILLY ELEGY tells the tale of J.D. (naturally enough), who overcomes his impoverished roots and dysfunctional family background to become a star Law Student at Yale.
Gabriel Basso plays J.D. as the Law Student and he is just not charismatic enough to shine in this role especially as he goes up against 3 talented actresses that have PLENTY to sink their considerable acting chops into.
Close plays “Mamaw”, the grandmother of the clan. She is a no-nonsense, pragmatic matriarch that lives and breathes (through cigarette clogged lungs) “Family First”. It’s an interesting and strong performance by Close, but she does teeter into “Granny Clampett” territory at times for me. It’s a good performance…but the one that will finally get Close her Oscar? I don’t think so.
Amy Adams steals the movie as J.D.’s mother (and Mamaw’s daughter), Bev. She is (as we say in these parts) “a whole thing”. Her Bev is self-centered, clawing, desperate and constantly wondering why the world doesn’t give her the things that she is deserved. Nothing is EVER her fault and if you don’t believe me, just ask her. Adams’ performance is the strongest in this film and she never crosses the line into caricature.
One last moment of credit needs to be given to Haley Bennett as J.D.’s sister Lindsay, who is often the one stuck taking care of their Mother. When I first saw Bennett a few years back in 2016 in back to back strong performances in THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN and THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, I thought we were watching the emergence of a star. It’s good to see her on the screen again.
Credit for these performances must go the unlikely person helming this film, good ol’, reliable Ron Howard who’s workmanlike Directorial instincts and style lends itself very well to this, often told, type of story. It’s nothing flashy, but gets the job done.
And that pretty much sums up my feelings towards this film “nothing flashy, but gets the job done”, not the greatest film to come out in 2020 - but it is layered with 3 strong female performances by Adams, Bennett and Close so that makes this film one good enough to check out.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written by Vanessa Taylor and based on the book (and true story) by J.D. Vance, HILLBILLY ELEGY tells the tale of J.D. (naturally enough), who overcomes his impoverished roots and dysfunctional family background to become a star Law Student at Yale.
Gabriel Basso plays J.D. as the Law Student and he is just not charismatic enough to shine in this role especially as he goes up against 3 talented actresses that have PLENTY to sink their considerable acting chops into.
Close plays “Mamaw”, the grandmother of the clan. She is a no-nonsense, pragmatic matriarch that lives and breathes (through cigarette clogged lungs) “Family First”. It’s an interesting and strong performance by Close, but she does teeter into “Granny Clampett” territory at times for me. It’s a good performance…but the one that will finally get Close her Oscar? I don’t think so.
Amy Adams steals the movie as J.D.’s mother (and Mamaw’s daughter), Bev. She is (as we say in these parts) “a whole thing”. Her Bev is self-centered, clawing, desperate and constantly wondering why the world doesn’t give her the things that she is deserved. Nothing is EVER her fault and if you don’t believe me, just ask her. Adams’ performance is the strongest in this film and she never crosses the line into caricature.
One last moment of credit needs to be given to Haley Bennett as J.D.’s sister Lindsay, who is often the one stuck taking care of their Mother. When I first saw Bennett a few years back in 2016 in back to back strong performances in THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN and THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, I thought we were watching the emergence of a star. It’s good to see her on the screen again.
Credit for these performances must go the unlikely person helming this film, good ol’, reliable Ron Howard who’s workmanlike Directorial instincts and style lends itself very well to this, often told, type of story. It’s nothing flashy, but gets the job done.
And that pretty much sums up my feelings towards this film “nothing flashy, but gets the job done”, not the greatest film to come out in 2020 - but it is layered with 3 strong female performances by Adams, Bennett and Close so that makes this film one good enough to check out.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Oct 5, 2020
Better Than I Expected
Over the years, there has been "cash grab" sequels thrown out onto an unsuspecting public years after the beloved original film has settled into the warm memories of time. Films like THE TWO JAKES (sequel to CHINATOWN), THE EVENING STAR (sequel to TERMS OF ENDEARMENT) and, most notably, THE GODFATHER III (sequel to the first two, terrific GODFATHER films) all were filmed more than 10 years after the original classic and quickly died at the box office.
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Thus, I steered very clear of the sequel to the great Stanley Kubrick film THE SHINING (based on the novel by Stephen King). This time it was Ewan MacGregor as a grown up Danny Torrance, otherwise known as DOCTOR SLEEP. True, this one was based on Stephen King's sequel novel, but still, I avoided it.
Well...2020 being 2020...I was searching for something "new" to watch and tripped across this, so thought "what the heck, I'll give it a go"...
And...I was pleasantly surprised - Doctor Sleep is actually a pretty good flick, capturing the flavor of the original while becoming an entity of it's own.
Doctor Sleep tells the tale of an adult Danny Torrance (Ewan MacGregor) the grown-up son of the Jack Nicholson character (Jack Torrance) in THE SHINING. Danny struggles to come to grips with what happened at the Overlook Hotel - and with his ability to "Shine".
As written and directed by Mike Flanagan (GERALD'S GAME), Doctor Sleep serves as a creepy "chase flick" and a homage to The Shining at the same time. Flanagan does a decent job of giving us motivations and meanings to Danny's own personal journey while weaving in a plausible, effective use of the characters and locations of The Shining.
Part of this success rests on the castings of actors to recreate the roles - and feelings - of characters from the original Stanley Kubrick film. Alex Essoe (Wendy Torrance), Carl Lumbly (Dick Halloran) and Henry Thomas - yes the kid from ET - (as "the bartender", who is clearly Jack Torrance) all bring the essence of the previous film's characters to the events while carving out their own versions of the characters. The same can be said for Flanagan's use (re-use?) of the Overlook Hotel locations and stylings. From the patterned carpet to the typewriter in the lobby to the elevators spewing blood to the hole in the bathroom door that the axe went through - all added to the creepy eeriness of "I've been here before".
But, I think Flanagan was more interested in that part of the story/film than the other part, for faring less successfully is Danny's journey. Fault cannot be made of Ewan MacGregor's performance, he is very good, considering the clunky dialogue he is given, and he gives Danny a haunted feeling, simultaneously chasing and running from his past. But Flanagan really skims over this part of the film - why/how Danny becomes the titular "Doctor Sleep" is almost in a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. While I like the pacing of this film, I think it could have used a little more care and feeding on the front end, to help us understand/invest in Danny's journey more.
Also not faring as well as it could have is the bad guys in this film - a group of characters called THE KNOT. Flanagan enlists a "decent enough" group of character actors for this group though, I think, this film pulls it's punches with these villains and it suffers from it. The leader of the group is "Rose The Hat", played by Rebecca Ferguson (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN) and she is charismatic (as always) and draws you into her world, and her group. She is very seductive in this role - and that is really good. HOWEVER, when it is time for this "spider" to pounce on her prey, she just doesn't have the intimidation and fear factor, so I was never really scared or unnerved by her.
But, as far as sequels go, this one holds up very well and does a very good job of being an homage to the original film while driving it's own story - and characters - along.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In God, and Doss, we Trust.
Those dreaded words – “Based On A True Story” – emerge again from the blackness of the opening page. Actually, no. In a move that could be considered arrogant if it wasn’t so well researched, here we even lose the first two words.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Jan 20, 2020
An endurance test but a great endurance test
Martin Scorsese made a lot of enemies recently with his rant against the superficiality of the Marvel movies. But you can hardly argue that his latest film is superficial. We see the mobster Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) in his old people's home wistfully recalling his past life. Through flashback we go back to times as early as his service in World War II, where he learned to kill other men without a second thought.
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
