Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
Ensemble cast (1 more)
Plain good fun
Rebooted again, and just as fun.
One of the pleasant movie surprises of Christmas 2017 for me was "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle". I expected it to be a tired retread of the original classic, but instead it turned into a highly entertaining action comedy. Reading my review again, I was rather po-faced about it and scored it with a rather measly 7/10. But this rather belies my secret love of the movie: it is a film that I can invariably watch and enjoy again and again.
This was also a film that raked in a HUGE return at the box office, getting close to the billion dollar number on its $90 million budget. During the spring of 2018, this was an almost permanent resident at the multiplexes (until "The Greatest Showman" and "Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again" took over the residence for the rest of the year!) . A sequel was inevitable
We rejoin the cast some time after the events of the first film, and the geeky teenage lovers - Spencer and Bethany - are trying, unsuccessfully, to carry on their long distance relationship while at separate colleges. Spencer is struggling mentally; lacking in confidence and momentum and desperate to feel like 'Smoulder' Bravestone again.
On returning to his home town for the holidays, Spencer fixes the shattered game. But the console is unpredictable and when the game sucks people into Jumanji this time it's not just Spencer and two of his friends that go in, but Spencer's Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his old friend Milo (Danny Glover).
When they get there though, things have changed and the mission is a different one. A "next level" indeed!
This is very much 'much of the same' from the first film. Yes, there's a different backdrop with desert and mountain 'levels' to play through. But the same fun, with exploding avatars and dangerous cake, is to be had again. The script team had to do something different here, and they did that by mixing up the avatars (including a surprising equine player) and throwing in the 'pensioners' to the mix. There is new fun to be mined here from the now nimble-again Eddie and the slow-talking and laconic Milo never quite getting to the point in time.
The stars were all persuaded back for another ride. The four avatar leads (Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Jack Black and Kevin Hart) all return, together with the young teens (Alex Wolff, Morgan Turner, Ser'Darius Blain and Madison Iseman). Nick Jonas and his older real-life player Colin Hanks are back. Even Nigel "Welcome to Jumanji" Billingsley (Rhys Darby) returns, this time swapping his jeep for a plane.
The newcomers to the cast are also welcome. Glover and DeVito are at their cranky best, and introduce a genuinely touching moment into the film. And a new avatar - Ming Fleetfoot - is fabulous in the form of Awkwafina, so brilliant in this year's "The Farewell".
There's not much more to say on this. If you liked the original, you'll enjoy this one too. Many of the same jokes are trotted out again. The villain (here Rory McCann) is as forgettable as in the first film. It's not breaking any records in terms of originality, but the producers won't mind about that as long as it drags the crowds in again. At the time of writing it has made $320K on its $125K budget, so that seems to be working.
Jake Kasdan is again at the helm. But I really hope enough is enough, and they leave it at this. The mid-credits scene might suggest though that greed is going to dictate a Jumanji 4 (or 5 in some people's books). The returns, I fear, from the franchise will be ever diminishing from this point forwards.
(For the full graphical review go here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-jumanji-the-next-level-2019/ .)
This was also a film that raked in a HUGE return at the box office, getting close to the billion dollar number on its $90 million budget. During the spring of 2018, this was an almost permanent resident at the multiplexes (until "The Greatest Showman" and "Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again" took over the residence for the rest of the year!) . A sequel was inevitable
We rejoin the cast some time after the events of the first film, and the geeky teenage lovers - Spencer and Bethany - are trying, unsuccessfully, to carry on their long distance relationship while at separate colleges. Spencer is struggling mentally; lacking in confidence and momentum and desperate to feel like 'Smoulder' Bravestone again.
On returning to his home town for the holidays, Spencer fixes the shattered game. But the console is unpredictable and when the game sucks people into Jumanji this time it's not just Spencer and two of his friends that go in, but Spencer's Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his old friend Milo (Danny Glover).
When they get there though, things have changed and the mission is a different one. A "next level" indeed!
This is very much 'much of the same' from the first film. Yes, there's a different backdrop with desert and mountain 'levels' to play through. But the same fun, with exploding avatars and dangerous cake, is to be had again. The script team had to do something different here, and they did that by mixing up the avatars (including a surprising equine player) and throwing in the 'pensioners' to the mix. There is new fun to be mined here from the now nimble-again Eddie and the slow-talking and laconic Milo never quite getting to the point in time.
The stars were all persuaded back for another ride. The four avatar leads (Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Jack Black and Kevin Hart) all return, together with the young teens (Alex Wolff, Morgan Turner, Ser'Darius Blain and Madison Iseman). Nick Jonas and his older real-life player Colin Hanks are back. Even Nigel "Welcome to Jumanji" Billingsley (Rhys Darby) returns, this time swapping his jeep for a plane.
The newcomers to the cast are also welcome. Glover and DeVito are at their cranky best, and introduce a genuinely touching moment into the film. And a new avatar - Ming Fleetfoot - is fabulous in the form of Awkwafina, so brilliant in this year's "The Farewell".
There's not much more to say on this. If you liked the original, you'll enjoy this one too. Many of the same jokes are trotted out again. The villain (here Rory McCann) is as forgettable as in the first film. It's not breaking any records in terms of originality, but the producers won't mind about that as long as it drags the crowds in again. At the time of writing it has made $320K on its $125K budget, so that seems to be working.
Jake Kasdan is again at the helm. But I really hope enough is enough, and they leave it at this. The mid-credits scene might suggest though that greed is going to dictate a Jumanji 4 (or 5 in some people's books). The returns, I fear, from the franchise will be ever diminishing from this point forwards.
(For the full graphical review go here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-jumanji-the-next-level-2019/ .)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Fright Night (1985) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
You Can't Murder a Vampire
Fright Night- is a excellent vampire movie. Directed by Tom Holland. It has comedy, horror, lots of gory and Peter Vincent.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.
Lee (2222 KP) rated An American Pickle (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
A fish-out-of-water movie where Seth Rogen plays two members of the same family, brought together following an accident which left one of them preserved in brine for 100 years? It’s a wacky premise, and with Rogen in the title role, you’d probably form a pretty good idea of how this might play out as a goofball comedy. Thankfully, it’s not like that at all.
It’s 1919. Herschel Greenbaum leads a simple life, working as a ditch-digger in Eastern European village Schlupsk – a tough job, that results in many broken shovels. One day though, his luck changes when he meets Sarah, and they fall in love. They have so much in common – his parents were murdered by Cossacks, her parents were murdered by Cossacks, not to mention the fact that they both like black! But when those pesky Cossacks ravage the village on their wedding day, Herschel and Sarah decide to set sail for America, with plans for a new life in the land of opportunity. Settling in Brooklyn, Herschel still has pretty simple life goals, wanting one day to be able to experience the luxury of seltzer water (“I want the bubbles to tickle my tongue”). But he and his now pregnant wife vow that in 100 years time, the Greenbaum name will actually mean something.
Herschel lands himself a slightly better job than ditch-digger – chasing and killing rats in a pickle factory! But an unfortunate accident sees Herschel falling into a large vat of pickles, right at the very moment that the factory gets condemned and shut down. The lid is placed on the vat and the workers quickly abandon the factory, leaving Herschel perfectly preserved in the brine. 100 years pass, and the city develops around the factory, which miraculously seems to remain untouched until 2019, when a couple of kids venture inside and remove the lid of the vat, releasing Herschel from his hibernation.
The science behind how this perfect preservation was possible is hilariously glossed over, and when his only living relative is discovered, Herschel is released into his care. Great-grandson Ben (also played by Rogen) is an app developer residing in Brooklyn, and with no living family is overjoyed at the opportunity to take Herschel back to his apartment and begin introducing him to the future.
Ben has a SodaStream, so finally being able to enjoy the tickling bubbles of seltzer water is already a highlight for Herschel. Ben also owns 25 pairs of socks, which is amazing as he only has two feet! But it’s not long before Herschel begins to question why Ben doesn’t have any family photos up in his apartment and why the mobile app that Ben has been working so hard on for the last five years hasn’t really taken off. After discovering that the plot of land where his wife Sarah is buried sits right beneath a billboard advertising vodka (“Cossack vodka!”), Herschel becomes determined to raise the $200,000 needed to buy the plot of land so that he can remove the billboard.
The trailer for An American Pickle gave the impression that, despite the obvious wackiness of the plot, there was evidence of a strong family movie at the heart – a touching representation of what it would mean to be able to spend some time with one of your ancestors. There are certainly elements of that here, early on and in the latter parts of the movie. However, with their differing approaches to family values and attitudes to business, the pair soon fall out, and there is a lengthy period of bickering and backstabbing, which eventually becomes tiresome. Herschel starts setting up his own pickle business from scratch, while a jealous Ben does his very best to ruin everything. It’s a noticeable lack of focus that ultimately lets the movie down.
Despite that, it’s wonderful to see Seth Rogen in such different roles. I’m not usually a fan of his, bored of his usual stoner shtick in almost every movie he’s in. But I really enjoyed his performances in this, especially as the thickly accented Herschel, and his interactions with Ben are both charming and wonderful at times.
It’s 1919. Herschel Greenbaum leads a simple life, working as a ditch-digger in Eastern European village Schlupsk – a tough job, that results in many broken shovels. One day though, his luck changes when he meets Sarah, and they fall in love. They have so much in common – his parents were murdered by Cossacks, her parents were murdered by Cossacks, not to mention the fact that they both like black! But when those pesky Cossacks ravage the village on their wedding day, Herschel and Sarah decide to set sail for America, with plans for a new life in the land of opportunity. Settling in Brooklyn, Herschel still has pretty simple life goals, wanting one day to be able to experience the luxury of seltzer water (“I want the bubbles to tickle my tongue”). But he and his now pregnant wife vow that in 100 years time, the Greenbaum name will actually mean something.
Herschel lands himself a slightly better job than ditch-digger – chasing and killing rats in a pickle factory! But an unfortunate accident sees Herschel falling into a large vat of pickles, right at the very moment that the factory gets condemned and shut down. The lid is placed on the vat and the workers quickly abandon the factory, leaving Herschel perfectly preserved in the brine. 100 years pass, and the city develops around the factory, which miraculously seems to remain untouched until 2019, when a couple of kids venture inside and remove the lid of the vat, releasing Herschel from his hibernation.
The science behind how this perfect preservation was possible is hilariously glossed over, and when his only living relative is discovered, Herschel is released into his care. Great-grandson Ben (also played by Rogen) is an app developer residing in Brooklyn, and with no living family is overjoyed at the opportunity to take Herschel back to his apartment and begin introducing him to the future.
Ben has a SodaStream, so finally being able to enjoy the tickling bubbles of seltzer water is already a highlight for Herschel. Ben also owns 25 pairs of socks, which is amazing as he only has two feet! But it’s not long before Herschel begins to question why Ben doesn’t have any family photos up in his apartment and why the mobile app that Ben has been working so hard on for the last five years hasn’t really taken off. After discovering that the plot of land where his wife Sarah is buried sits right beneath a billboard advertising vodka (“Cossack vodka!”), Herschel becomes determined to raise the $200,000 needed to buy the plot of land so that he can remove the billboard.
The trailer for An American Pickle gave the impression that, despite the obvious wackiness of the plot, there was evidence of a strong family movie at the heart – a touching representation of what it would mean to be able to spend some time with one of your ancestors. There are certainly elements of that here, early on and in the latter parts of the movie. However, with their differing approaches to family values and attitudes to business, the pair soon fall out, and there is a lengthy period of bickering and backstabbing, which eventually becomes tiresome. Herschel starts setting up his own pickle business from scratch, while a jealous Ben does his very best to ruin everything. It’s a noticeable lack of focus that ultimately lets the movie down.
Despite that, it’s wonderful to see Seth Rogen in such different roles. I’m not usually a fan of his, bored of his usual stoner shtick in almost every movie he’s in. But I really enjoyed his performances in this, especially as the thickly accented Herschel, and his interactions with Ben are both charming and wonderful at times.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Last Dragon (1985) in Movies
Jun 7, 2019
So Bad You Just Might Like it
In his quest to find “The Master” and expand his training, black martial arts expert Bruce Leroy (Taimak) has to square off against Sho’nuff the Shogun of Harlem. With me, yet?
Acting: 10
The performances aren’t what killed this movie. Julius Carry pulls off one of my all-time favorite roles as Sho-Nuff, playing a villain that’s not hard to hate. His nemesis, hero Bruce Leroy is played with a sweet innocence by Taimak who harbors a fierce fighting style similar to his idol who is none other than…well, you guessed it, Bruce Lee. Sometimes a bit overdone, I thought overall the acting fit the movie’s overblown proportions as a whole.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 5
Again, the problem isn’t the acting. It’s the characters portrayed by the actors. They are as cardboard as they come, seemingly like caricatures of actual roles. This can be summed up by one role in particular: Eddie Arkadian (Chris Murney). Part business-owner, part gangster, you look at his mean scowl and listen to his horrible lines thinking, “Why are they ruining this man’s career with this role? This is awful!” I can imagine there were a lot of career-ruining roles in this movie. I haven’t even mentioned Eddie’s girlfriend, Angela whose voice alone gives me the urge to punt a baby. I can imagine director Michael Schultz walking up to Faith Prince saying, “Great take! Now, could you do me a favor? Could you sound more like Miss Piggy in distress? Please and thank you!”
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
The style that Schultz tries to establish comes off as cheesy and overdone. He takes the phrase “A little dab’ll do ya” and decides to do the complete opposite. There is nothing special to see and too much to see at the same time. As confusing as that might sound, if you watch the movie, you’ll get it. While there are glimpses of cool effects, even those are drowned by poor cinematic direction. There is one scene towards the end where Bruce Leroy’s hands starts to glow. He slowly moves them in a wavy pattern which creates a cool effect….until he starts doing it super fast and literally multiplies himself in some crazy funhouse type of way. Whomp whomp.
Conflict: 6
Because the movie struggles to find it’s way juggling back and forth between soundtrack-driven, drama, comedy, and action movie, the conflict suffers as a result. The fighting scenes aren’t terrible when they happen but there is too much of everything else to really leave you satisfied with those scenes. I would have been happier with no attempted character or story development and just two pure hours of Bruce Leroy kicking peoples’ teeth out. When I watched the last showdown between Leroy and Sho’nuff, I thought they were really on to something. Unfortunately they got lost along the way.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 5
Love it or hate it (or both), you’ll be hard-pressed leaving the movie not quoting at least a handful of lines. It’s a movie that sticks to you whether you want it to or not. It does leave something of an impact, although not very lasting.
Pace: 3
Between Leroy searching for The Master and Eddie trying to get his girl a record deal, the movie really drags on in spots. I don’t say this often, but a little more linearity in this case would have been just fine. The Last Dragon suffers from a severe case of Much Ado About Nothing. Just when you think something is about to pop off, the scene ends with a whimper.
Plot: 2
As a kid, I thought the storyline was funny. Now I think it’s just plain sad. I don’t know how much thought went into that script, but reading through it should give any aspiring screenwriter hope that they too can make it big. Stories within ridiculous stories, a meh love story, and terrible motivations all around take a machete to the movie before it even had a chance.
Resolution: 7
Overall: 52
For my 100th review, I wanted to review a movie that had some kind of value to me. I grew up with The Last Dragon and, I have to say, it is a pretty damn fun movie. Fun, unfortunately, doesn’t always equate to good. There is a reason it has an 86% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes right now, though. No matter how you feel about it, there will come a point when you’re watching, even if it’s for five minutes, where you find yourself having an actual good time. Unfortunately it’s the other 103 minutes you have to worry about.
Acting: 10
The performances aren’t what killed this movie. Julius Carry pulls off one of my all-time favorite roles as Sho-Nuff, playing a villain that’s not hard to hate. His nemesis, hero Bruce Leroy is played with a sweet innocence by Taimak who harbors a fierce fighting style similar to his idol who is none other than…well, you guessed it, Bruce Lee. Sometimes a bit overdone, I thought overall the acting fit the movie’s overblown proportions as a whole.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 5
Again, the problem isn’t the acting. It’s the characters portrayed by the actors. They are as cardboard as they come, seemingly like caricatures of actual roles. This can be summed up by one role in particular: Eddie Arkadian (Chris Murney). Part business-owner, part gangster, you look at his mean scowl and listen to his horrible lines thinking, “Why are they ruining this man’s career with this role? This is awful!” I can imagine there were a lot of career-ruining roles in this movie. I haven’t even mentioned Eddie’s girlfriend, Angela whose voice alone gives me the urge to punt a baby. I can imagine director Michael Schultz walking up to Faith Prince saying, “Great take! Now, could you do me a favor? Could you sound more like Miss Piggy in distress? Please and thank you!”
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
The style that Schultz tries to establish comes off as cheesy and overdone. He takes the phrase “A little dab’ll do ya” and decides to do the complete opposite. There is nothing special to see and too much to see at the same time. As confusing as that might sound, if you watch the movie, you’ll get it. While there are glimpses of cool effects, even those are drowned by poor cinematic direction. There is one scene towards the end where Bruce Leroy’s hands starts to glow. He slowly moves them in a wavy pattern which creates a cool effect….until he starts doing it super fast and literally multiplies himself in some crazy funhouse type of way. Whomp whomp.
Conflict: 6
Because the movie struggles to find it’s way juggling back and forth between soundtrack-driven, drama, comedy, and action movie, the conflict suffers as a result. The fighting scenes aren’t terrible when they happen but there is too much of everything else to really leave you satisfied with those scenes. I would have been happier with no attempted character or story development and just two pure hours of Bruce Leroy kicking peoples’ teeth out. When I watched the last showdown between Leroy and Sho’nuff, I thought they were really on to something. Unfortunately they got lost along the way.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 5
Love it or hate it (or both), you’ll be hard-pressed leaving the movie not quoting at least a handful of lines. It’s a movie that sticks to you whether you want it to or not. It does leave something of an impact, although not very lasting.
Pace: 3
Between Leroy searching for The Master and Eddie trying to get his girl a record deal, the movie really drags on in spots. I don’t say this often, but a little more linearity in this case would have been just fine. The Last Dragon suffers from a severe case of Much Ado About Nothing. Just when you think something is about to pop off, the scene ends with a whimper.
Plot: 2
As a kid, I thought the storyline was funny. Now I think it’s just plain sad. I don’t know how much thought went into that script, but reading through it should give any aspiring screenwriter hope that they too can make it big. Stories within ridiculous stories, a meh love story, and terrible motivations all around take a machete to the movie before it even had a chance.
Resolution: 7
Overall: 52
For my 100th review, I wanted to review a movie that had some kind of value to me. I grew up with The Last Dragon and, I have to say, it is a pretty damn fun movie. Fun, unfortunately, doesn’t always equate to good. There is a reason it has an 86% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes right now, though. No matter how you feel about it, there will come a point when you’re watching, even if it’s for five minutes, where you find yourself having an actual good time. Unfortunately it’s the other 103 minutes you have to worry about.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Under the Silver Lake (2018) in Movies
Jul 6, 2019
In David Robert Mitchell’s (It Follows) Under the Silver Lake, Andrew Garfield portrays a jobless and lethargic young man named Sam. Apart from his obsession with conspiracy theories and finding obscure messages in common pop culture, Sam typically spies on his topless and bird-loving neighbor. He also blatantly ignores the fact that he’s facing eviction in five days for unpaid rent. His current infatuation is a zine entitled Under the Silver Lake, which seems to mirror what’s currently transpiring in Los Angeles. Sam develops a crush on his new neighbor named Sarah (Riley Keough), who seems to disappear without a trace overnight. What begins as an investigation into Sarah’s current whereabouts evolves into something deeply rooted in the peculiar.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Oct 8, 2019
Roman Griffin Davis stars as Jojo Betzler in Taika Waititi’s black comedy Jojo Rabbit. Along with his second best friend Yorki (Archie Yates), Jojo is a part of a Nazi training camp for young boys and girls to become the men and women suited for Hitler supporting soldiers. Meanwhile, Jojo’s mom Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) is secretly hiding a young Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) within the walls of their home. Jojo, who is incredibly adamant about Hitler becoming his first best friend, has Hitler as an imaginary friend (portrayed by Taika Waititi) who shows up whenever Jojo seems to need a pep talk.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.
Based on the 2008 novel Caging Skies by Christine Leunens, Jojo Rabbit is a bonkers twist on one of the most devastating wars and tyrannical madmen in history. On the surface, the film is about a child attempting to become a Nazi because he views HItler as this great leader. He has to attempt to learn to kill, hate Jews, and essentially ignore all of his morals in order to just fit in with an army who believes they are the superior race. The intriguing aspect is that Waititi injects this unexpected tenderness and has concocted a film that has a heartbeat that is entirely too human and too genuine for any sort of project involving the likes of Adolf Hitler.
The Jojo/Hitler dynamic is an incredibly playful one. Hitler only seems to show up when something doesn’t go according to plan for Jojo or he needs some words of encouragement when times get tough. Hitler is a figment of Jojo’s imagination and is completely reactionary to Jojo’s world. If Jojo gets scared, Hitler shows up to remind him why he’s risking his own self comfort. While Waititi is funny and awkwardly charming as Hitler, which is an odd thing to say in itself, don’t overlook Archie Yates. Roman Griffin Davis encapsulates this innocence that even Elsa describes as something along the lines of a ten year old playing dress up with his friends in order to join a club. But Yates often plays off of Davis humorously and amusingly and will likely be forgotten about by some by the time they leave the theater.
Seemingly tapping into his inspiration for Gentlemen Broncos, Sam Rockwell portrays Captain Klenzendorf - a former war veteran who lost an eye and is now forced to teach children how to be soldiers. He has this strange tension on the verge of romance thing going on with his right hand man Finkel (Alfie Allen) and has extravagant taste with intricate ideas for his new uniform. Rockwell and Allen are hilarious and outshine Rebel Wilson’s Fräulein Rahm who never seems to serve much purpose before or after her line about, “having 18 kids for Germany.”
The sweet nature of Jojo Rabbit is expanded upon with the mother/son relationship between Rosie and Jojo. They have completely different viewpoints of a world on the verge of total annihilation where Jojo is slowly nudged into his mother’s mindset. It’s not so much a brainwashing as it is Jojo coming to terms with how he feels about people. Jojo Rabbit defines who we all are on the inside and simply explores the path anyone with an everyday beating heart (not rooted by a tiny mustache) would travel down over the course of their youth.
It’s kind of extraordinary that Jojo Rabbit has been released during a time when Fox Searchlight Pictures is owned by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures where a guy directing two of the biggest Thor movies did a side project where he plays Hitler and never had to attempt to keep that a secret. Waititi puts Jojo Betzler through the ringer by blowing him up repeatedly and throwing him down a flight of stairs all while being bullied and pushed around the entire time. But dammit if Jojo Rabbit isn’t one of the most heartfelt and imaginative fairy tales of the year.
This is a film where storytelling, embellishing and elongating false reputations, and glorifying urban myths is the driving force of entertainment. Underneath its layers of SS uniforms, dangerous pistols, and knives you should never leave home without, Jojo Rabbit is a touching film about human compassion with an intimacy that is absolutely unparalleled. Categorized somewhere between Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and an imaginative concept that is an obvious homage to Calvin and Hobbes, love feels like it’s the only thing spreading across the world more powerful than war and Jojo Rabbit is more than happy to hype you up and throw you in love’s way without remorse.