Search
Search results
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.
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).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Triple 9 (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
A crew of bank robbers is strong-armed by the Russian mob to pull off a near impossible heist due the response time of the police. In order to create a larger window, the dirty cops of this crew suggest creating a 999 (police code for “officer down.”) on the other side of town. That is the basic plot of Triple 9. Yet, the tagline for this film is, “The Code on the street is never black and white.” Seems like a different movie which is part of the letdown of Triple 9. It doesn’t know what it wants to be. Is it a heist movie like Heat or The Town? Or is it trying to be a movie about the cops and the rules of the streets like Training Day?
In the beginning, the film sets its self-up to be a smart and stylistic heist film. However shortly after it begins to feel disjointed as it attempts to develop everyone in its ensemble cast to the point where it hurts the story and some excellent performances become forgettable. It’s a shame because somewhere in this film is potentially two excellent separate films. One film about a crew having to complete a heist for the mob to save their lives and loved ones, and another about dirty cops, their partners and the moral ambiguity of the code on the streets. In Triple 9, these two premises never really get developed on one side or the other and thus everything is just left there.
On the heist side, Chiwetel Ejiofor plays ex-mercenary Michael Atwood. Michael is the careful and calculating leader of the crew, but is tied to the Russian mafia through the mother of his son. Michael is constantly being coerced by the Russian Mob Boss, played by Kate Winslet. The two give stellar performances, most notably Winslet who is cold and ruthless in wielding her power, speaking her mind and not caring how the job gets done as long as it gets done.
On the cop side, Anthony Mackie plays dirty police detective Marcus Belmont who becomes partnered with the ex-marine turned rookie detective Chris Allen (Casey Affleck). Belmont feels that the rookie doesn’t respect the streets and his “Do-gooder” “make a difference” attitude is going to get him killed. When Belmont’s heist crewmate Jorge Rodriguez (Clifton Collins Jr.) learns Chris is also the nephew of the Sergeant Detective (Woody Harrelson) investigating the heist crew, Chris becomes the clear candidate to be set up for the Triple 9. (Convenient huh)
Ultimately, as the story plays out it feels we are always arriving at the end of the meeting to plan the coming events. From the planning of the heist, to the set up murder, and to the exit plan, we are just carried through the motions without much motivation of how or why things have to play out the way they do. As a result, I didn’t really care for any of the characters good or bad, unlike other films of this nature. Even Ejiofor’s character Michael, who has his child involved, doesn’t get the opportunity to really show why the rest of the crew respects him and follows him, or why he needs to stay alive for his son, who basically seems better off being taken care of by the Russian mob.
In the end Triple 9 is not a bad movie, it just isn’t really a great one either. It has strong performances by the entire cast and has the makings of something great, but fails to deliver on that opportunity with a disjointed story trying to focus on too many characters. This makes it ultimately forgettable compared to other heist films of similar nature.
In the beginning, the film sets its self-up to be a smart and stylistic heist film. However shortly after it begins to feel disjointed as it attempts to develop everyone in its ensemble cast to the point where it hurts the story and some excellent performances become forgettable. It’s a shame because somewhere in this film is potentially two excellent separate films. One film about a crew having to complete a heist for the mob to save their lives and loved ones, and another about dirty cops, their partners and the moral ambiguity of the code on the streets. In Triple 9, these two premises never really get developed on one side or the other and thus everything is just left there.
On the heist side, Chiwetel Ejiofor plays ex-mercenary Michael Atwood. Michael is the careful and calculating leader of the crew, but is tied to the Russian mafia through the mother of his son. Michael is constantly being coerced by the Russian Mob Boss, played by Kate Winslet. The two give stellar performances, most notably Winslet who is cold and ruthless in wielding her power, speaking her mind and not caring how the job gets done as long as it gets done.
On the cop side, Anthony Mackie plays dirty police detective Marcus Belmont who becomes partnered with the ex-marine turned rookie detective Chris Allen (Casey Affleck). Belmont feels that the rookie doesn’t respect the streets and his “Do-gooder” “make a difference” attitude is going to get him killed. When Belmont’s heist crewmate Jorge Rodriguez (Clifton Collins Jr.) learns Chris is also the nephew of the Sergeant Detective (Woody Harrelson) investigating the heist crew, Chris becomes the clear candidate to be set up for the Triple 9. (Convenient huh)
Ultimately, as the story plays out it feels we are always arriving at the end of the meeting to plan the coming events. From the planning of the heist, to the set up murder, and to the exit plan, we are just carried through the motions without much motivation of how or why things have to play out the way they do. As a result, I didn’t really care for any of the characters good or bad, unlike other films of this nature. Even Ejiofor’s character Michael, who has his child involved, doesn’t get the opportunity to really show why the rest of the crew respects him and follows him, or why he needs to stay alive for his son, who basically seems better off being taken care of by the Russian mob.
In the end Triple 9 is not a bad movie, it just isn’t really a great one either. It has strong performances by the entire cast and has the makings of something great, but fails to deliver on that opportunity with a disjointed story trying to focus on too many characters. This makes it ultimately forgettable compared to other heist films of similar nature.
Kristina (502 KP) rated It Ends With Us in Books
Dec 7, 2020
Holy mother of God. I don't know where to start, honestly. Colleen is very good at stunning me into silence, so it's difficult to put my emotions into words - which is why you'll notice I either have no reviews or pretty vague reviews for her books. But I just can't do that with this one. There's no way. What I read wrung me dry and had me staring at the wall for a full 5 minutes before I could even move. What Lily experiences is so real and raw, so emotional, I felt like I was her. Her thoughts were true to who she was and honest. As I read Lily's diary entries, I felt a kinship, because I had experienced some of the same growing up. I felt her fear, her worry, her anger, her curiosity. To watch your mother go through that is no fun. I found it endearing that Lily wrote her diary in the form of letters to Ellen DeGeneres - she's an awesome woman. I fell in love twice in the span of one book. Even though I hoped I was wrong, I had a strong premonition, and I was right about it. I truly wish I wasn't. After reading the Author's note, I completely agree with Colleen. I kind of wish she had written it differently; I kind of wish she hadn't used the plot that she did. But, as she also said, it would have ruined the whole point of writing this story, and I understand that. I still love the story, because it's beautiful (yet heartbreaking) in all its glory, and it gets the meaning across just the way Colleen meant it to. I'm ashamed to say I was like many of the others: "Why doesn't she just leave?" Sure, I questioned the opposite spouse, but this question has always been the first to enter my mind. After reading It Ends With Us, I feel even worse that I've ever had that thought. It's true, life isn't just black and white, and niether is any situation. We never truly know what it's like for anyone unless we were in that same situation - and no two situations are exactly alike. All I can say is that while I fell in love twice, my heart broke a million times, and it still didn't feel completely whole by the time the story ended. I do hope Colleen decides to write a short novella about Lily's future, because I feel like I need more closure. My heart needs more closure. Nothing could have prepared me for this book and I have absolutely no regrets about going in blind. The Queen never ceases to amaze me. Once again, I'm adding a CoHo book to my favorites shelf. Bravo, Colleen.
***Spoiler***
Naked truth?
I think a part of me still loves Ryle. I worried that he was too perfect in the beginning. I knew there had to be a flaw and I was scared Lily's mom's situation would have something to do with it. What I'm most scared about is the fact I kind of wanted Lily to forgive him and take him back. Because who knows, having a daughter could have knocked the abusive side of him right out. And, sure, she loved Atlas, but I felt like it could have blossomed into a mature, familial type love. I'm so very proud of Lily and the decision she made, especially because it was for little Emmy. But a part of me mourns the loss of Ryle. Because his pain was real, his regret was real. Still... No matter how sorry he was, as Lily stated, there is no excuse; she did what she had to do.
***Spoiler***
Naked truth?
I think a part of me still loves Ryle. I worried that he was too perfect in the beginning. I knew there had to be a flaw and I was scared Lily's mom's situation would have something to do with it. What I'm most scared about is the fact I kind of wanted Lily to forgive him and take him back. Because who knows, having a daughter could have knocked the abusive side of him right out. And, sure, she loved Atlas, but I felt like it could have blossomed into a mature, familial type love. I'm so very proud of Lily and the decision she made, especially because it was for little Emmy. But a part of me mourns the loss of Ryle. Because his pain was real, his regret was real. Still... No matter how sorry he was, as Lily stated, there is no excuse; she did what she had to do.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nomadland (2020) in Movies
May 5, 2021
Frances McDormand - outstanding acting (2 more)
Cinematography
A novel slice of American alternative lifestyle
Don't exit with your sail-boat still in the driveway
"Nomadland" sees a widowed and depressed Fern (Frances McDormand) take what she needs from her lockup garage and head out on the road in her beat-up converted camper-van. Taking work wherever she can get it, she joins and befriends a similar set of 'nomads', all equally battered by life in different ways.
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Positives:
- Undeniably a superior motion picture, full of memorable imagery and with an incredible central performance from the impeccably dour Frances McDormand. Few actors can 'listen' and react as well as she can.
- A key part of this is the superb cinematography from (Brit-born) Joshua James Richards. This is a movie which I MUST revisit on the big-screen when the cinemas reopen in the UK in 2 week's time. I thought "Mank" was terrific (rather against the grain of many other movie fans) largely because of Erik Messerschmitt's glorious black-and-white cinematography. But I suspect Mr Richards (interestingly, Chloé Zhao's partner) was mightily hacked-off for missing out on the golden prize, as well he might be.
- It's difficult to rate the script on this one, primarily because it's difficult to know sometimes where the scripted bits end and the 'ad lib' parts begin. The majority of the cast are real nomads, recounting - presumably - their genuine life experiences. (The only exceptions, I believe, are Frances McDormand, David Strathairn and his son Tay Strathairn. The two Strathairn's last appeared on screen together in 1988's "Eight Men Out" when Tay was just eight years old!). As such, the film is an interesting blend of fiction and documentary.
- The movie skewers both capitalism and materialism nicely. As someone who has recently got off the corporate rat-race by retiring, the tale of the man who died before he could use the retirement sail-boat parked in his driveway resonated strongly (and made me very pleased with my decision!). We all get so wrapped up with running around the maze trying to find the cheese that it's often difficult to appreciate that 'getting off and cutting back' is a stress-free and acceptable option. (Not that I'm particularly cutting back, a la Fern..... start saving the retirement coppers early kids!!)
- The movie is also an effective study of grief and the different ways in which people come to terms with it. (Although that does make the overall film feel like a bit of a downer).
- Beautiful classical accompanying music by the great Ludovico Einaudi.
Negatives:
- I really loved this movie for its first hour. But then, for me, the story didn't really maintain my full interest. It was all a bit grey and bland. Did Fern really have much of a story-arc here? She started off at point A and ended up at point B where AB is a short distance! True that perhaps she has a little more acceptance and contentment with her position. But I was looking for more. If this had been a 90 minute film rather than a 107 minute movie, it would have (imho) worked better.
Summary Thoughts on "Nomadland": When a movie gets so much awards-hype thrown at it, I often fear watching it in case I absolutely hate it! That's not really possible with Nomadland, since it is just so well made that you can't help but appreciate what Chloé Zhao and her team have done here. It successfully challenges your misconceptions of what a "normal life" can be. The life might not be for you, or me, but it is an option.
That being said, this is not a movie that will be on my "must re-watch repeatedly" list (although I definitely DO want to see it on the big screen). It sits on that 'worthy-but-dull' list, alongside "Lincoln" and "Moonlight": Movies that I can fully appreciate for their artistry but not for their entertainment value.
As a movie that explores an unexplored social strata in America, and does it in a novel semi-documentary manner, I can understand and accept why it was voted as the Best Film by the Academy. But 'entertainment' ranks highly on my list of criteria. So - for my personal Oscar Best Film choice - I would still go with "Promising Young Woman" every time.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/05/nomadland-dont-exit-with-your-sailboat-still-in-your-driveway/ . Thanks.)
Travelr - Sugar Daddy Travel
Travel and Social Networking
App
Welcome to Travelr - One of the best Tinder way sugar daddy travel dating app for singles which gave...
Video Filters - The Pro Camera Photo Effects and Pro Zoom Slow Motion Stabilize Stereo Audio Videos App
Photo & Video and Utilities
7.0
Rate It
App
On Sale Today - $3.99 - (Regularly $7.99) ENHANCE YOUR VIDEOS & PHOTOS LIKE A PRO • Get 100...
Small World
7.1
Rate It
Tabletop Game
In Small World, players vie for conquest and control of a world that is simply too small to...
Boardgames BetterThanRisk DaysofWonderGames
Brother iPrint&Scan
Utilities and Photo & Video
App
Brother iPrint&Scan is a free app that enables you to print from and scan to your iOS device (iPhone...
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated The Devil's Well (2017) in Movies
Jan 31, 2018
It made me think, which is more than I expected.
A ‘documentary’ film consisting mostly of found footage, capped with interviews on either end, The Devil’s Well attempts to convince viewers that there is still something interesting in the subgenre to be had. Sometimes, it nearly succeeds, but most of the time it just falls a bit flat.
I will say this for The Devil’s Well, it made me think about it. Some of the things that I initially found as flaws in the movie I wondered about later. Like was the lack of ‘forboding’ sound effects that you generally hear right before something happens. I also did like the interaction between the team members in regards to the reality of their situation. It is very clear that while some people have a definite motivation for coming to The Devil’s Well, the others are not exactly on board.
I liked the bluntness with which the cameras overseer of the Signs group (Kurtis Spieler) speaks to Bryan Marks (played by Bryan Manley Davis). The conversation felt exactly like one that would really have happened. I found myself rooting for him to survive. I also found myself hoping for the reveal that everything had been a huge hoax. (Though, speaking of the cameras, why were some in black and white and some weren’t?)
I think the weakest point is with the actress that played Karla Marks, but I’m unsure if I think it was the dialogue or the acting that failed. All I know is that while I was semi-engaged with most of the film, her scenes had me rolling my eyes a bit.
The Devil’s Well was well-shot and the acting was decent, but other than a few thought provoking moments, it really brings nothing new to the table. I wish there had been a bit more explanation about what had happened to Karla during the year that she was missing. The fact that it’s almost completely open ended drives me a bit bonkers.
Disclaimer: I received a screener link of this movie for review consideration from October Coast Media.
I will say this for The Devil’s Well, it made me think about it. Some of the things that I initially found as flaws in the movie I wondered about later. Like was the lack of ‘forboding’ sound effects that you generally hear right before something happens. I also did like the interaction between the team members in regards to the reality of their situation. It is very clear that while some people have a definite motivation for coming to The Devil’s Well, the others are not exactly on board.
I liked the bluntness with which the cameras overseer of the Signs group (Kurtis Spieler) speaks to Bryan Marks (played by Bryan Manley Davis). The conversation felt exactly like one that would really have happened. I found myself rooting for him to survive. I also found myself hoping for the reveal that everything had been a huge hoax. (Though, speaking of the cameras, why were some in black and white and some weren’t?)
I think the weakest point is with the actress that played Karla Marks, but I’m unsure if I think it was the dialogue or the acting that failed. All I know is that while I was semi-engaged with most of the film, her scenes had me rolling my eyes a bit.
The Devil’s Well was well-shot and the acting was decent, but other than a few thought provoking moments, it really brings nothing new to the table. I wish there had been a bit more explanation about what had happened to Karla during the year that she was missing. The fact that it’s almost completely open ended drives me a bit bonkers.
Disclaimer: I received a screener link of this movie for review consideration from October Coast Media.