Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Jamie (131 KP) rated Nasty Women in Books
May 24, 2017
A timely collection of personal and political essays
It was really cool to get to see the world through the eyes of women coming from walks of life entirely removed from my own. There were many whose struggles I couldn’t even begin to imagine dealing with, while others I found comfort that I wasn’t alone in the issues that I have faced. The anthology really does cover a wide range of topics by authors from drastically different backgrounds.
The one essay that stood out the most to me was “Choices” by Rowan C. Clarke, which discussed the author’s difficult relationship with her mother and that never ending struggle to please. While the underlying messages in all of the stories were political and feminist, they were also very personal and down to earth which is what made this collection pretty emotional.
I did have a few issues with the anthology, however, that I need to address. The first was that the quality of each essay varied pretty wildly. The version I read was an ARC so it’s difficult for me to judge the final product, but there were several that weren’t well structured or were rife with grammatical and formatting errors. There were citations (I love citations!) that weren’t formatted all that well for my ebook version (cutting into the middle of paragraphs) that perhaps would’ve been better placed at the end. As for the actual content, most were incredibly well written and heartfelt, a few felt like angry rants that were more alienating than empowering, then there was one that just felt stiff and spent more time with the preface rather than the story.
While on the subject of alienation, despite the rather diverse sets of authors and essays, I feel like there were some missing pieces still. It’s obvious from the title what many of the authors thought about the last election and I didn’t like how black and white things were with barely any room in-between. In cases like this, I’m sure most of the readers would be those looking for confirmation of beliefs that they already share, which is fine except that it closes the door on discussion with the other side which is truly unfortunate.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that what was already here was pretty great. I see what they were going for and I appreciated it. I love to see discussion about politics and social issues, but I worry when the tone leans too far toward one extreme it only invites backlash from the other extreme. It’s a difficult balancing act between maintaining one’s own core beliefs while also trying to open things up to the other side so that perhaps they could engage in the conversation and, ideally, listen and have their own perceptions changed.
But I digress, despite the complaints I had about the book, I found it to be a pretty quick and enjoyable read. It gives a voice to groups of women that aren’t often heard in the greater narrative of the feminist movement. The experiences of these many women enrich that narrative and there’s a lot we can all learn from each other especially in these troubling times.
The one essay that stood out the most to me was “Choices” by Rowan C. Clarke, which discussed the author’s difficult relationship with her mother and that never ending struggle to please. While the underlying messages in all of the stories were political and feminist, they were also very personal and down to earth which is what made this collection pretty emotional.
I did have a few issues with the anthology, however, that I need to address. The first was that the quality of each essay varied pretty wildly. The version I read was an ARC so it’s difficult for me to judge the final product, but there were several that weren’t well structured or were rife with grammatical and formatting errors. There were citations (I love citations!) that weren’t formatted all that well for my ebook version (cutting into the middle of paragraphs) that perhaps would’ve been better placed at the end. As for the actual content, most were incredibly well written and heartfelt, a few felt like angry rants that were more alienating than empowering, then there was one that just felt stiff and spent more time with the preface rather than the story.
While on the subject of alienation, despite the rather diverse sets of authors and essays, I feel like there were some missing pieces still. It’s obvious from the title what many of the authors thought about the last election and I didn’t like how black and white things were with barely any room in-between. In cases like this, I’m sure most of the readers would be those looking for confirmation of beliefs that they already share, which is fine except that it closes the door on discussion with the other side which is truly unfortunate.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that what was already here was pretty great. I see what they were going for and I appreciated it. I love to see discussion about politics and social issues, but I worry when the tone leans too far toward one extreme it only invites backlash from the other extreme. It’s a difficult balancing act between maintaining one’s own core beliefs while also trying to open things up to the other side so that perhaps they could engage in the conversation and, ideally, listen and have their own perceptions changed.
But I digress, despite the complaints I had about the book, I found it to be a pretty quick and enjoyable read. It gives a voice to groups of women that aren’t often heard in the greater narrative of the feminist movement. The experiences of these many women enrich that narrative and there’s a lot we can all learn from each other especially in these troubling times.
Mothergamer (1649 KP) rated Puppeteer in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I was perusing games on Amazon when the game Puppeteer was suggested to me. I was intrigued by the cover and looked at the game description to see what it was about. It sounded interesting and it was on sale so I purchased it. I started playing the game and I was blown away by it because it's not like any game I've played before. The whimsical aspect of it is charming and it made me think of Little Big Planet which is also a fun and whimsical game. If you're a fan of Little Big Planet like I am, you will enjoy Puppeteer.
Puppeteer is a side scrolling platform game and you play as a boy turned into an animated puppet who loses his head named Kutaro. Kutaro gains a variety of puppet heads to replace his own throughout the game. You have three puppet heads and when you lose a head, you have thirty seconds to grab the head and put it back on or you lose it forever. Your heads are basically like lives so when you lose all three heads/lives it's game over.
The story takes place in a fantasy world representing Earth's moon which is inhabited by a myriad of folklore style characters and they are all puppets as well. The game is set up to look like a faux stage with red curtains and you can hear an audience reacting to the events that happen in the story along with commentary from the narrator. It adds to the charm of Puppeteer, making it feel like a complete theater experience while playing a video game. The first half of the game is on the dark side of the moon while the second half is on the Earth side. When Kutaro's story begins, the narrator explains that the Moon Goddess was overthrown by by her servant Little Bear who then seized her black moonstone and the scissors called Calibrus and dubbed himself the Moon Bear King.
Kutaro exploring the first level of the game.
The Moon Bear King is the main villain, but there are several villains you have to battle before you get to him; twelve of his generals based on the twelve animals of the Chinese Zodiac. Each of them has a piece of the Goddess' white moonstone which Kutaro must get from them. Kutaro does get tools that can help him and eventually he does get Calibrus which are essentially a weapon for him. There are creative ways in which they are used besides as a weapon such as jumping to cut clouds to get to a high ledge or cutting seams to move faster while battling an enemy. They are also used to free the other animated children like Kutaro by cutting the puppet strings so they can return home.
There are other tools that are used as well such as ninja bombs which can open pathways for you and a pirate hook which can hook items or secret doors. They are smartly and creatively used with simple puzzles in various levels of the game which makes the game play entertaining and interesting.
Talking with Ezma Potts, one of the many characters in Puppeteer.
The environments in Puppeteer are bright, colorful, and filled with beautifully done imaginative things. They're fun to explore and you can go back and play previously beaten levels because there are so many puppet heads and bonus items to collect. A couple of levels were my favorites such as the pirate one and the Halloween one because they put a smile on my face while playing and the Halloween one gave a Nightmare Before Christmas vibe that I loved. There are a few moments of frustration here and there with a couple of the boss battles and depth perception issues in a couple of levels, but it's not a huge deal because the execution of how the game plays and how well the story flows makes Puppeteer worth playing.
Avast! Hanging out with pirates.
The game is about nine or ten hours of story and if you really want to explore to get every single puppet head out there, all the trophies, and bonus stages that can add a little more extra time and keep you pretty busy. The voice acting and music for the game is superb and there are even moments of humor that will cause you to laugh. It's quite clear that the developers of Puppeteer loved this game and enjoyed designing it and their imaginations really shine throughout the entire game; making Puppeteer a wonderful gem for gamers like myself who appreciate the fun and whimsy.
While some of the art can be dark and spooky like the Halloween level, there's plenty of light and fun levels making the game enjoyable for people of all ages. Overall, Puppeteer is a delightfully charming game and so much fun to play. It is worth buying and playing more than once because it doesn't take itself seriously, celebrates all things whimsical and fun, and is a terrific game.
Puppeteer is a side scrolling platform game and you play as a boy turned into an animated puppet who loses his head named Kutaro. Kutaro gains a variety of puppet heads to replace his own throughout the game. You have three puppet heads and when you lose a head, you have thirty seconds to grab the head and put it back on or you lose it forever. Your heads are basically like lives so when you lose all three heads/lives it's game over.
The story takes place in a fantasy world representing Earth's moon which is inhabited by a myriad of folklore style characters and they are all puppets as well. The game is set up to look like a faux stage with red curtains and you can hear an audience reacting to the events that happen in the story along with commentary from the narrator. It adds to the charm of Puppeteer, making it feel like a complete theater experience while playing a video game. The first half of the game is on the dark side of the moon while the second half is on the Earth side. When Kutaro's story begins, the narrator explains that the Moon Goddess was overthrown by by her servant Little Bear who then seized her black moonstone and the scissors called Calibrus and dubbed himself the Moon Bear King.
Kutaro exploring the first level of the game.
The Moon Bear King is the main villain, but there are several villains you have to battle before you get to him; twelve of his generals based on the twelve animals of the Chinese Zodiac. Each of them has a piece of the Goddess' white moonstone which Kutaro must get from them. Kutaro does get tools that can help him and eventually he does get Calibrus which are essentially a weapon for him. There are creative ways in which they are used besides as a weapon such as jumping to cut clouds to get to a high ledge or cutting seams to move faster while battling an enemy. They are also used to free the other animated children like Kutaro by cutting the puppet strings so they can return home.
There are other tools that are used as well such as ninja bombs which can open pathways for you and a pirate hook which can hook items or secret doors. They are smartly and creatively used with simple puzzles in various levels of the game which makes the game play entertaining and interesting.
Talking with Ezma Potts, one of the many characters in Puppeteer.
The environments in Puppeteer are bright, colorful, and filled with beautifully done imaginative things. They're fun to explore and you can go back and play previously beaten levels because there are so many puppet heads and bonus items to collect. A couple of levels were my favorites such as the pirate one and the Halloween one because they put a smile on my face while playing and the Halloween one gave a Nightmare Before Christmas vibe that I loved. There are a few moments of frustration here and there with a couple of the boss battles and depth perception issues in a couple of levels, but it's not a huge deal because the execution of how the game plays and how well the story flows makes Puppeteer worth playing.
Avast! Hanging out with pirates.
The game is about nine or ten hours of story and if you really want to explore to get every single puppet head out there, all the trophies, and bonus stages that can add a little more extra time and keep you pretty busy. The voice acting and music for the game is superb and there are even moments of humor that will cause you to laugh. It's quite clear that the developers of Puppeteer loved this game and enjoyed designing it and their imaginations really shine throughout the entire game; making Puppeteer a wonderful gem for gamers like myself who appreciate the fun and whimsy.
While some of the art can be dark and spooky like the Halloween level, there's plenty of light and fun levels making the game enjoyable for people of all ages. Overall, Puppeteer is a delightfully charming game and so much fun to play. It is worth buying and playing more than once because it doesn't take itself seriously, celebrates all things whimsical and fun, and is a terrific game.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Casablanca (1942) in Movies
Feb 13, 2019
A classic in every sense of the word
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns, in all the world, she had to walk into mine."
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
ClearScanner:scan image to pdf
Business and Utilities
App
Free Document Scanner App that gives you the following features + Good scan results. + No watermarks...
Scanner for Fax & QR Codes
Utilities and Productivity
App
Scanbot is the best mobile scanner app for documents and QR codes. Create free, high-quality PDF or...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Feb 22, 2019
Thought-Provoking
Roma follows the story of Cleo, a domestic worker for a middle class family in Mexico. who is dealing with the strife of classism in the 70’s.
Acting: 10
Beautiful acting here in a number of strong roles. Yalitza Aparicio is phenomenal in her role as Cleo. She plays the part in a shy and withrdawn matter, someone who loves the family she works for but knows it’s duty above all else. Aparicio makes you feel what Cleo feels in powerful moments like the traffic scene and the final scene on the beach, neither of which I will give away. I loved her relationship between her and Adela played by Nancy Garcia Garcia (not a typo) who shined in her role as well. They had a true synergy that worked for the movie as a whole.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The film is shot in black and white which I appreciated. It give you a sense of a “then and now” kind of feel: You know it takes place in the 70’s, but it feels like director Alfonso Cuaron was able to capture a piece of life that could still exist today. Beautiful pans of the Mexican landscape somehow give me a nostalgic vibe and I’m not even from Mexico. The movie sprawls across a number of different locations that are beautiful in their own right. From old-school movie theaters to desert valleys, it’s feels like you are on a journey.
Conflict: 8
The conflict is created as a result of Cleo’s class. There are hardships that come with her place in society in addition to the typical crap that life might throw your way. She finds herself tiptoeing around a home with a disgruntled wife who is ready to bite Cleo’s head off at any moment. Meanwhile, things aren’t much better in Cleo’s personal life as she finds herself in situations that not only make her life more difficult but bring shame to her family. As the viewer, you understand this is the way life is for Cleo and things probably won’t get much better by the end of it. But you hope she beats it anyway.
Genre: 7
I originally scored this slightly lower, but I quickly changed it as I started to peel back more and more layers of Roma. My wife and I were dead tired after viewing the film, but we found ourselves laying around talking about it for thirty minutes after it was over. A solid movie is one you can discuss long after you watch it and Roma is definitely one of those movies.
Memorability: 10
There are a number of scenes that I think about even now and say, “Wow, that was extremely powerful.” I don’t want to ruin them for fear of ruining the impact, but one scene includes a powerful confession that is beyond heartfelt. It hits you right in the gut and you think, “How could someone say that?” while also thinking, “I understand exactly where she is coming from.” Cleo’s struggles, including her battles with honor and love, leave a lasting impact that makes you want to watch the film again to reexamine it.
Pace: 6
Plot: 6
Resolution: 5
Overall: 76
Roma is the kind of movie that the artsy-fartsy nuts go crazy over. I thought it was good, but it fell just short of Best Picture worthy in my opinion due to a slow start and pace, and a meh ending. A few tweaks and I definitely could see this movie being a classic.
Acting: 10
Beautiful acting here in a number of strong roles. Yalitza Aparicio is phenomenal in her role as Cleo. She plays the part in a shy and withrdawn matter, someone who loves the family she works for but knows it’s duty above all else. Aparicio makes you feel what Cleo feels in powerful moments like the traffic scene and the final scene on the beach, neither of which I will give away. I loved her relationship between her and Adela played by Nancy Garcia Garcia (not a typo) who shined in her role as well. They had a true synergy that worked for the movie as a whole.
Beginning: 4
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The film is shot in black and white which I appreciated. It give you a sense of a “then and now” kind of feel: You know it takes place in the 70’s, but it feels like director Alfonso Cuaron was able to capture a piece of life that could still exist today. Beautiful pans of the Mexican landscape somehow give me a nostalgic vibe and I’m not even from Mexico. The movie sprawls across a number of different locations that are beautiful in their own right. From old-school movie theaters to desert valleys, it’s feels like you are on a journey.
Conflict: 8
The conflict is created as a result of Cleo’s class. There are hardships that come with her place in society in addition to the typical crap that life might throw your way. She finds herself tiptoeing around a home with a disgruntled wife who is ready to bite Cleo’s head off at any moment. Meanwhile, things aren’t much better in Cleo’s personal life as she finds herself in situations that not only make her life more difficult but bring shame to her family. As the viewer, you understand this is the way life is for Cleo and things probably won’t get much better by the end of it. But you hope she beats it anyway.
Genre: 7
I originally scored this slightly lower, but I quickly changed it as I started to peel back more and more layers of Roma. My wife and I were dead tired after viewing the film, but we found ourselves laying around talking about it for thirty minutes after it was over. A solid movie is one you can discuss long after you watch it and Roma is definitely one of those movies.
Memorability: 10
There are a number of scenes that I think about even now and say, “Wow, that was extremely powerful.” I don’t want to ruin them for fear of ruining the impact, but one scene includes a powerful confession that is beyond heartfelt. It hits you right in the gut and you think, “How could someone say that?” while also thinking, “I understand exactly where she is coming from.” Cleo’s struggles, including her battles with honor and love, leave a lasting impact that makes you want to watch the film again to reexamine it.
Pace: 6
Plot: 6
Resolution: 5
Overall: 76
Roma is the kind of movie that the artsy-fartsy nuts go crazy over. I thought it was good, but it fell just short of Best Picture worthy in my opinion due to a slow start and pace, and a meh ending. A few tweaks and I definitely could see this movie being a classic.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I think that almost everyone has some knowledge of Laurel and Hardy. Certainly growing up with a love of black and white comedies meant that I saw a fair few myself. There's certainly a familiarity in what we see from Coogan and Reilly that brings a smile to your face. The main problem is that it's such a hard act to follow. I can't say that I'm left raving about what was presented. It's a charming film... I'm just not sure if that's a compliment or not.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
Seeing the BBC Films logo come up at the beginning gave me some hope. Having never really enjoy either of the main actor's work this actually gave me some hope that this would be an amazing sort of production that I've come to love from the BBC. Sadly, again, I wasn't wowed by what I saw.
Coogan and Reilly do both manage to capture their part of the double act well, and seeing those trademark moves briefly gives you that spark of joy. Nostalgia is a very powerful thing and you get a great buzz but I'm not sure it's enough to make up for the overall feeling of the film.
Both Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda make for a fiery support cast in the roles of Lucille Hardy and Ida Laurel, but I have to say that Ida was the character for me. Self promoting and yet fiercely loyal. Loving and yet tinged with a streak of harsh reality. It was pleasing to see how she evolved to show such heart and unite the pair at the end.
Capturing snippets of a lifetime is always difficult. There are so many things going on that you have to choose whether to feature or not and that inevitably leads to gaps and slight inconsistencies. Hardy's gambling made several appearances but at no point is it really shown as a severe problem , most of it was done in a very lighthearted manner which sort of defeated the point of it being mentioned at all.
The first half of the film is incredibly slow and dare I say dull. So much so that I did wonder whether it was anything like the film that the trailer had promised. While I did silently chuckle to myself it was by no means laugh out loud funny with it's comedy... although the woman across the aisle from me would probably disagree on that point.
Despite my rather bland feelings about the film it did have some excellent moments. The opening sequence of them walking through the studio lot is really well set up, but shots after that were all very traditional. My other stand out moment was right at the end where they're doing their last performance. In that moment I had a stream of tears running down my face. The fact that they managed to convey the end of Laurel and Hardy's career in such a relatively short sequence was amazing.
Ultimately I think some of the greats from history should probably be left in that iconic position. I'm really not sure that this added anything to their story.
What you should do
If you#re one for nostalgia then you should head on out to see this in January.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd have to have just a little piece of Stan Laurel's creativity and dedication.
Ama (21 KP) rated Detroit (2017) in Movies
Sep 11, 2017
Shattering
The first couple of questions when writing a review here are What's good? and What's bad?
Now, as you've seen I have given this film a full score, but I could not for the life of me put into a sentence what was good about it. It's not a nice film. Nothing about it is good. Except the way it makes you feel with it. But then even that is not a good thing. It's ugly.
I watched Detroit yesterday at the local cinema. I had seen the trailer, knew it was gonna be a tearjerker, knew I would hate the world and myself after watching it.
What I realised is that I completely underestimated the film.
About half an hour to an hour in all I wanted to do was to turn it off. I had an urge to just turn the cinema off, go home and potentially have some chocolate.
It wasn't the fact that the film was bad (I repeat, I gave it a full score), nor was it surprising narrative (again, I had seen the trailer and my tiny bit of historical knowledge filled in the gaps), but something in the way it was presented somehow evoked that feeling of wanting it to go away.
When I walked out of the cinema and forced myself to think about it, I realised a couple of things (all of which eventually made me come to the conclusion that that might have been deliberate).
First of all that film was lit like a feature film and shot like a documentary. This means that watching it, my brain was trying to fool me into thinking this was real a lot more than it usually would. It's film like a documentary, so it's a documentary so this is exactly what must have happened, right? There was a camera at the scene, right?
Well, of course there wasn't. Of course it was still a feature film and of course before the credit it was even stated that besides the testimonies of the parties involved, there was still dramatic licence taken. But that didn't change the fact that it shook me. It shook me because that little shake of the camera that was a little more intense that I was used to and that little zoom every now and then to get closer to an action as though the camera had only just noticed it all lead to that convincing idea of this being real and having happened exactly as I was seeing it.
The acting was splendid. Again, upon contemplating the film, I wondered what it was like for all of these black people (the term used deliberately) to play these roles, having grown up in that country themselves. I wondered what it was like for Will Poulter to become an asshole from the work 'Action!' and while that isn't any different than any other set, somehow, in Detroit, it seemed like so much bigger a deal. On this note, kudos to all the actors in this piece. There was none of you that felt out of place or irrelevant. Each of you portrayed a character dealing with the situation at hand differently and on a spectrum that showed how truly diverse humans are - even if united in a cause, be it on the white side or the black.
I could go on for hours (which I did, with the friend I went to see it with) about how this film made me feel and how much insecurity in the current world it made me feel, but there is no point in doing that. Feelings are best felt, rather than read so just watch it and I'm sure you'll understand.
I do want to say this though:
This film made me realise that the world we live in today is not the product from its past, but rather a work in progress towards what is to come.
I in no way mean that I did not know that previously, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding.
On this note, this film is not for the faint hearted but it is one of those important films that need to be watched at the moment.
Now, as you've seen I have given this film a full score, but I could not for the life of me put into a sentence what was good about it. It's not a nice film. Nothing about it is good. Except the way it makes you feel with it. But then even that is not a good thing. It's ugly.
I watched Detroit yesterday at the local cinema. I had seen the trailer, knew it was gonna be a tearjerker, knew I would hate the world and myself after watching it.
What I realised is that I completely underestimated the film.
About half an hour to an hour in all I wanted to do was to turn it off. I had an urge to just turn the cinema off, go home and potentially have some chocolate.
It wasn't the fact that the film was bad (I repeat, I gave it a full score), nor was it surprising narrative (again, I had seen the trailer and my tiny bit of historical knowledge filled in the gaps), but something in the way it was presented somehow evoked that feeling of wanting it to go away.
When I walked out of the cinema and forced myself to think about it, I realised a couple of things (all of which eventually made me come to the conclusion that that might have been deliberate).
First of all that film was lit like a feature film and shot like a documentary. This means that watching it, my brain was trying to fool me into thinking this was real a lot more than it usually would. It's film like a documentary, so it's a documentary so this is exactly what must have happened, right? There was a camera at the scene, right?
Well, of course there wasn't. Of course it was still a feature film and of course before the credit it was even stated that besides the testimonies of the parties involved, there was still dramatic licence taken. But that didn't change the fact that it shook me. It shook me because that little shake of the camera that was a little more intense that I was used to and that little zoom every now and then to get closer to an action as though the camera had only just noticed it all lead to that convincing idea of this being real and having happened exactly as I was seeing it.
The acting was splendid. Again, upon contemplating the film, I wondered what it was like for all of these black people (the term used deliberately) to play these roles, having grown up in that country themselves. I wondered what it was like for Will Poulter to become an asshole from the work 'Action!' and while that isn't any different than any other set, somehow, in Detroit, it seemed like so much bigger a deal. On this note, kudos to all the actors in this piece. There was none of you that felt out of place or irrelevant. Each of you portrayed a character dealing with the situation at hand differently and on a spectrum that showed how truly diverse humans are - even if united in a cause, be it on the white side or the black.
I could go on for hours (which I did, with the friend I went to see it with) about how this film made me feel and how much insecurity in the current world it made me feel, but there is no point in doing that. Feelings are best felt, rather than read so just watch it and I'm sure you'll understand.
I do want to say this though:
This film made me realise that the world we live in today is not the product from its past, but rather a work in progress towards what is to come.
I in no way mean that I did not know that previously, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding.
On this note, this film is not for the faint hearted but it is one of those important films that need to be watched at the moment.