Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Making films from books has always been a tricky proposition. For every film adaptation that hits it big such as Jaws, Lord of the Rings and The Silence of the Lambs, there are several that fail to work or are downright disasters such as The Bonfire of the Vanities.
In the film The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams first book in his classic series has finally arrived on the big screen after many delays getting started and a successful version on PBS.
The film stars Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent, a simple, easy going fellow whose entire goal in life is to stop the demolition of his beloved home from those who want to put a new highway in its current location.
As Arthur attempts to block the demolition, his good friend Ford Prefect (Mos Def), arrives and stalls the demolition with free beer for the work crew. Thinking he has been saved, Arthur is puzzled when Ford takes him to a local pub and buys rounds for the entire pub, saying the world is ending in a few minutes.
Ford in reality is an alien visiting the Earth and learns that the Earth is about to be destroyed to make way for a new galactic expressway. Before he knows what has happened, Arthur is whisked away seconds before the destruction of the Earth by Ford as they end up on a ship of the demolition fleet.
After a series of bizarre events and a narrow escape, Ford and Arthur end up on a passing ship that has been stolen by galactic president Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), and Trillian (Zooey Deschanel), who just happens to be the lady of Arthur’s dreams and who is also unaware that the Earth has been destroyed in the short amount of time since she left Earth to explore with Zaphod.
As if this was not enough, the ship also has a depressed android named Marvin (Warwick Davis and voiced by Allan Rickman).
It is at this point that the film goes horribly wrong as the amusing and interesting setup quickly goes nowhere. While the crew is sent on a series of quests, each becomes less interesting than the one before it, and the very bland production values of the film are exposed. The sets are very basic and look as if they were borrowed from many of the budget driven British Sci-Fi that frequents PBS. Somehow the idea of an alien room being nothing but a rusty wall and a slapped up sign just does not cut it for me. At times I thought I was watching a home video production done by fans or another late night B movie rather than a major studio summer release.
As bad as the sets were what is even more amazing was the at times laughable attempts at visual effects where it was obvious that the actors were standing in front of screens as the matting lines were visible.
I tried to put a lot of this off to the idea that the film was trying to be quirky in keeping with the book, but quirky is not an excuse for underwhelming effects, basic sets, and lousy costuming and make up effects as I half expected to see zippers on the costumes of many aliens that looked like they were cobbled from parts at a hardware store.
So now that I have covered my issues with the look of the film, let’s look at the story itself. In a word: boring. I could not believe how dull and lazy the film became, and how the staff seemed to be going through the motions. The cast has zero chemistry and Rockwell is so frantic that his character is annoying to watch. After five minutes of his rock star in the spotlight style shtick, I wanted to strangle the character or at least get him on some serious medication.
Director Garth Jennings also has many scenes that simply go nowhere or drag on only to cut at odd times resulting in a complete and utter lack of pacing.
I am a big fan of the book series and I had very high hopes for this film. Sadly the disaster that resulted may very well have Douglas Adams spinning in his grave as his classic work was destroyed. I have to wonder how much of his original draft for the script that was used as the basis for the film survived.
While extreme die hard fans may enjoy the film, even they are likely to be disappointed and I can only hope that if they try to make the next book in the series, “The Restaurant at the End of the Universe”, they do a much better job then this effort, as this is one awful film adaptation.
In the film The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the late Douglas Adams first book in his classic series has finally arrived on the big screen after many delays getting started and a successful version on PBS.
The film stars Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent, a simple, easy going fellow whose entire goal in life is to stop the demolition of his beloved home from those who want to put a new highway in its current location.
As Arthur attempts to block the demolition, his good friend Ford Prefect (Mos Def), arrives and stalls the demolition with free beer for the work crew. Thinking he has been saved, Arthur is puzzled when Ford takes him to a local pub and buys rounds for the entire pub, saying the world is ending in a few minutes.
Ford in reality is an alien visiting the Earth and learns that the Earth is about to be destroyed to make way for a new galactic expressway. Before he knows what has happened, Arthur is whisked away seconds before the destruction of the Earth by Ford as they end up on a ship of the demolition fleet.
After a series of bizarre events and a narrow escape, Ford and Arthur end up on a passing ship that has been stolen by galactic president Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), and Trillian (Zooey Deschanel), who just happens to be the lady of Arthur’s dreams and who is also unaware that the Earth has been destroyed in the short amount of time since she left Earth to explore with Zaphod.
As if this was not enough, the ship also has a depressed android named Marvin (Warwick Davis and voiced by Allan Rickman).
It is at this point that the film goes horribly wrong as the amusing and interesting setup quickly goes nowhere. While the crew is sent on a series of quests, each becomes less interesting than the one before it, and the very bland production values of the film are exposed. The sets are very basic and look as if they were borrowed from many of the budget driven British Sci-Fi that frequents PBS. Somehow the idea of an alien room being nothing but a rusty wall and a slapped up sign just does not cut it for me. At times I thought I was watching a home video production done by fans or another late night B movie rather than a major studio summer release.
As bad as the sets were what is even more amazing was the at times laughable attempts at visual effects where it was obvious that the actors were standing in front of screens as the matting lines were visible.
I tried to put a lot of this off to the idea that the film was trying to be quirky in keeping with the book, but quirky is not an excuse for underwhelming effects, basic sets, and lousy costuming and make up effects as I half expected to see zippers on the costumes of many aliens that looked like they were cobbled from parts at a hardware store.
So now that I have covered my issues with the look of the film, let’s look at the story itself. In a word: boring. I could not believe how dull and lazy the film became, and how the staff seemed to be going through the motions. The cast has zero chemistry and Rockwell is so frantic that his character is annoying to watch. After five minutes of his rock star in the spotlight style shtick, I wanted to strangle the character or at least get him on some serious medication.
Director Garth Jennings also has many scenes that simply go nowhere or drag on only to cut at odd times resulting in a complete and utter lack of pacing.
I am a big fan of the book series and I had very high hopes for this film. Sadly the disaster that resulted may very well have Douglas Adams spinning in his grave as his classic work was destroyed. I have to wonder how much of his original draft for the script that was used as the basis for the film survived.
While extreme die hard fans may enjoy the film, even they are likely to be disappointed and I can only hope that if they try to make the next book in the series, “The Restaurant at the End of the Universe”, they do a much better job then this effort, as this is one awful film adaptation.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated West Side Story (2021) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Very Good...but could have (SHOULD HAVE) been GREAT
One of the biggest disappointments in watching a Motion Picture is when a Film has all of the ingredients to be a GREAT film, but is knocked off this tier by one flaw - and sometimes - is knocked down to merely good by an egregious flaw.
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Fair warning, if you see this film you will want Blake Lively to be your lover by the end of the it.
There's no denying that this is an entertaining film. There's also no denying that it's predictable. Even without knowing the plot you can basically guess the way it's going to progress.
Blake Lively is amazing though. I honestly thought I'd never seen her in anything, but of course she's been in Green Lantern and Accepted. The latter being a favourite and the former... well, I thought Deadpool had taken care of that one for us... oh well. She does a great job of her role in this one. You can see her devious nature in the way she interacts with everyone and she really does improve the scenes she's in.
I love Anna Kendrick, she's funny and very talented but I wasn't overly keen on her character in this. While I understand that Stephanie takes a major character shift when she realises what has happened, I didn't enjoy the way they did that on the screen. There were some baby steps followed by some huge leaps. At one point I was convinced that they'd gone... "Anna Kendrick always sings... we should get some of that in there." I don't feel like it added anything to the film at all. I'd be interested to see how her character unfolds in the book.
The humour in it is entertaining but the side story of the other "mums" and particularly their inclusion in the summing up of the story feels out of place and more comedy than was right for this film.
Rating this one is tricky. Apart from those odd bits I didn't hate the film and none of it was badly dont... but I don't think I enjoyed it either. I took the evening to think it over and honestly I'm still not sure so therefore it's sitting at the three and a half mark. There's an outside possibility that I'll watch it again to see if I can figure it out, but I don't think it'll be any time soon unless I'm really at a loose end.
Based on the book A Simple Favour by Darcey Bell.
What should you do?
I personally wouldn't recommend watching this until it's streaming. But plenty of other people would disagree with me on that.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Emily and Sean's house. Although I'm baffled as to why the kitchen is so small so I'd probably expand into the living room space.
There's no denying that this is an entertaining film. There's also no denying that it's predictable. Even without knowing the plot you can basically guess the way it's going to progress.
Blake Lively is amazing though. I honestly thought I'd never seen her in anything, but of course she's been in Green Lantern and Accepted. The latter being a favourite and the former... well, I thought Deadpool had taken care of that one for us... oh well. She does a great job of her role in this one. You can see her devious nature in the way she interacts with everyone and she really does improve the scenes she's in.
I love Anna Kendrick, she's funny and very talented but I wasn't overly keen on her character in this. While I understand that Stephanie takes a major character shift when she realises what has happened, I didn't enjoy the way they did that on the screen. There were some baby steps followed by some huge leaps. At one point I was convinced that they'd gone... "Anna Kendrick always sings... we should get some of that in there." I don't feel like it added anything to the film at all. I'd be interested to see how her character unfolds in the book.
The humour in it is entertaining but the side story of the other "mums" and particularly their inclusion in the summing up of the story feels out of place and more comedy than was right for this film.
Rating this one is tricky. Apart from those odd bits I didn't hate the film and none of it was badly dont... but I don't think I enjoyed it either. I took the evening to think it over and honestly I'm still not sure so therefore it's sitting at the three and a half mark. There's an outside possibility that I'll watch it again to see if I can figure it out, but I don't think it'll be any time soon unless I'm really at a loose end.
Based on the book A Simple Favour by Darcey Bell.
What should you do?
I personally wouldn't recommend watching this until it's streaming. But plenty of other people would disagree with me on that.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Emily and Sean's house. Although I'm baffled as to why the kitchen is so small so I'd probably expand into the living room space.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Call Of The Wild (2020) in Movies
Mar 1, 2020
When they announced Call of the Wild with Harrison Ford I was onboard, then they said they were CGIing the dog and I became expressionless. I understood how some bits would need to be CGId... but the whole dog? I WANT FLOOFS!
An excitable family pet gets taken to the wilds of the Yukon and sold as a sled dog. Along the way he makes new friends and learns about the call of the wild... I know, you'd never have guessed from the title of the film!
Let's deal with the giant dog in the room first. It's difficult to express my exact feelings about the CGI in the film, yes it isn't great, but by the end of the film [well, quite early on] I didn't care. Buck has so many personality traits and goofball moments that you know he must be CGI but it really doesn't matter. A lot of the things on screen I'm sure you would see in a real dog, but you can't put them through the same actions as their computer-generated counterparts. The opening sequence with Buck running through the house was cartoonish and daft, and while I rolled my eyes it was one of the many funny moments that happened throughout the film. You just acclimatise to the whole thing and forget that Buck isn't real.
While the humans take a back seat to Buck's adventures most of the time they're still great on screen. Omar Sy and Cara Gee as Perrault and Françoise make a great duo, and Sy with Buck has some very fun pieces. His reaction to the dogs feels very natural and the ice scene you briefly see in the trailer was a strong moment for everyone involved.
Dan Stevens playing Hal is the villain of the piece and his whole performance reminds me of a classic animated Disney villain, a cross between things from Lady and the Tramp, Beauty and the Beast and 101 Dalmations. There's a very specific maniacal villain in my head but I can't remember who or what film and it's driving me nuts! [Do let me know if you know!] By the end of the film though I was bothered more by his cartoonish acting than I was by the CG.
Our main pull was, of course, Harrison Ford. I don't know how John Thornton is portrayed in the book but the one in this film is a very relaxed character that only occasionally has to step it up. It isn't much of a stretched for Ford, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone told me he wasn't even acting.
This is peak adventure, with excitement, peril and humour. The whole audience was reacting, and it was wonderful. Having gone in prepared to be annoyed the whole way through I was amazed at just how much I laughed and cried, and how exhilarating they managed to make things. Call of the Wild was a delightful watch, dubious CGI and all.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-call-of-wild-movie-review.html
An excitable family pet gets taken to the wilds of the Yukon and sold as a sled dog. Along the way he makes new friends and learns about the call of the wild... I know, you'd never have guessed from the title of the film!
Let's deal with the giant dog in the room first. It's difficult to express my exact feelings about the CGI in the film, yes it isn't great, but by the end of the film [well, quite early on] I didn't care. Buck has so many personality traits and goofball moments that you know he must be CGI but it really doesn't matter. A lot of the things on screen I'm sure you would see in a real dog, but you can't put them through the same actions as their computer-generated counterparts. The opening sequence with Buck running through the house was cartoonish and daft, and while I rolled my eyes it was one of the many funny moments that happened throughout the film. You just acclimatise to the whole thing and forget that Buck isn't real.
While the humans take a back seat to Buck's adventures most of the time they're still great on screen. Omar Sy and Cara Gee as Perrault and Françoise make a great duo, and Sy with Buck has some very fun pieces. His reaction to the dogs feels very natural and the ice scene you briefly see in the trailer was a strong moment for everyone involved.
Dan Stevens playing Hal is the villain of the piece and his whole performance reminds me of a classic animated Disney villain, a cross between things from Lady and the Tramp, Beauty and the Beast and 101 Dalmations. There's a very specific maniacal villain in my head but I can't remember who or what film and it's driving me nuts! [Do let me know if you know!] By the end of the film though I was bothered more by his cartoonish acting than I was by the CG.
Our main pull was, of course, Harrison Ford. I don't know how John Thornton is portrayed in the book but the one in this film is a very relaxed character that only occasionally has to step it up. It isn't much of a stretched for Ford, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone told me he wasn't even acting.
This is peak adventure, with excitement, peril and humour. The whole audience was reacting, and it was wonderful. Having gone in prepared to be annoyed the whole way through I was amazed at just how much I laughed and cried, and how exhilarating they managed to make things. Call of the Wild was a delightful watch, dubious CGI and all.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-call-of-wild-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021
Hanks Does It Again
Tom Hanks interest in the men who fought in WWII is well known. From his starring role as Capt. Miller is what is (arguably) the definitive film about D-Day, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, to his Executive Producing role in, arguably, the best mini-series ever produced about WWII, BAND OF BROTHERS, Hanks has brought a face to the nameless heroes who fought in the middle of the last century.
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named “Greyhound”, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krause’s instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his “steely resolve” in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most “human” decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanks’ character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a “nit” in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of “character building scenes” that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and it’s mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUT…from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this film’s theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X results…but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Add his latest film GREYHOUND, to the list of films that brings a face to a heretofore unknown (at least to me) group of heroes.
Based on the book THE GOOD SHEPHERD by C.S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Hanks himself, GREYHOUND tells the story of a Commander of a U.S. Navy escort ship, helping cargo ships cross the Atlantic Ocean - an Ocean filled with enemy submarines.
Hanks, of course, plays Commander Ernest Krause, Captain of the USS Keeling, code named “Greyhound”, who is on his first mission. As one might imagine, Hanks imbues Krause with a common decency and you inherently trust Krause’s instincts as he makes split second decision after split second decision. What surprised me about Hanks in this role is his “steely resolve” in dealing with the problems. You can see his brain working as he makes pragmatic decision after pragmatic decision - sometimes not the most “human” decisions - but the right decisions after all.
This is both the strength and the problem with this film - Hanks’ character is NEVER wrong, so after awhile, the tension on the Bridge with Capt. Krause being questioned on his decisions, is never really there.
But, that is a “nit” in this film for Director Aaron Schneider has constructed a taunt and tight thriller that is non-stop action from start to finish. He wisely decided to keep the film at a tight 90 minutes and keep the action flying (versus putting in a couple of “character building scenes” that could have stretched the runtime). He does shoehorn in a flashback scene between Krause and his lady love (played by Elisabeth Shue), a scene that is not really needed, but besides this he focuses his attention on the Greyhound and it’s mission and this is a smart move that the film benefits from.
Director Schneider relies, heavily, on the Special F/X recreating the Atlantic sea battles and, for the most part, it succeeds. BUT…from time-to-time I felt like I was watching a video game - and not a film. The F/X (at times) was just not feature film quality that drew me away from the emotion and the action on the screen.
With the Global Pandemic, this film’s theatrical release was cancelled and it was put on Apple TV+(where you can find it today), so I can forgive the lower F/X results…but just a little.
All-in-all a fun thrill ride, with a terrific central performance, in a film that shows an aspect of WWII I had not previously scene portrayed on film before.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 21, 2019
Middle of the Road
I have to give the Walt Disney Company credit, with their Live Action remakes of their classic animated movies, they have developed a very lucrative profit stream with properties that they already own - and are well known to audiences. Some are successful (THE JUNGLE BOOK, ALADDIN), some are not quite so successful (DUMBO, ALICE IN WONDERLAND).
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Caroline is visiting her mother, Daisy, in the hospital while her mom is basically on her deathbed. We are in New Orleans and Katrina is well on its way to making landfall in the next few hours. Daisy tells Caroline to get a book out of the bag she brought to the hospital. This book winds up being the diary of a man named Benjamin Button; a man with an unusual condition of aging backwards. This is the extraordinary story of a man who wasn't expected to live to see his childhood, the people he met and grew to love, the challenging obstacles he had to face, his eventual adulthood, and beyond.
This was my favorite film of 2008. I found it fascinating from the very first frame. It has a running length of two hours and forty eight minutes, but it certainly doesn't feel that long. There were a few times when I wanted to look to see how long the movie had been going, but I'd put it off and then wind up forgetting about it. The film length is not a factor as the events that unfold go by rather quickly.
This film is magic. I don't mean that in the hocus pocus kind of sense. It made me feel things I wasn't aware could be felt after seeing a film. I almost cried. More than once. That's rare in itself, but on more than one occasion during the same film is pretty much unheard of for me. It was the first film I had ever seen that had made me feel better about myself after the credits rolled. On the way home, I wound up not turning the radio on or anything just so I could reflect on the movie for that much longer and keep this rare, warm, fuzzy feeling for as long as I could.
This is arguably Brad Pitt's best role, at least from the films of his I've seen. Making something like having the mind of a seven year old while having the body of an eighty year old man believable is probably not an easy task, but he pulls it off rather flawlessly. The make-up effects are something to behold, as well. The way these effects are used to show people aging in this film is just remarkable.
I've heard a lot of people compare The Curious Case of Benjamin Button to Forrest Gump. The truth of the matter is that other than both films being told in a narrative style and that characters sit on a bench at some point in both films during the time this story is being told, there really isn't much the two films have in common. I for one prefer Benjamin Button over Forrest Gump, but I'm not taking anything away from either film.
As superb of a film this is, its one downside is its length. That will probably turn a lot of people off. I was a bit weary when I first realized how long it was, but once I was finally in the theater watching the film, it all went by so quickly. My eyes were literally glued to the screen the entire time. The story is sad overall, but it moved me in ways no film has ever done before in the past. It's well worth whatever price you pay for the ticket and it's well worth sitting through the close to three hour duration. I wouldn't tell you it was the best movie of 2008 if I meant otherwise.
This was my favorite film of 2008. I found it fascinating from the very first frame. It has a running length of two hours and forty eight minutes, but it certainly doesn't feel that long. There were a few times when I wanted to look to see how long the movie had been going, but I'd put it off and then wind up forgetting about it. The film length is not a factor as the events that unfold go by rather quickly.
This film is magic. I don't mean that in the hocus pocus kind of sense. It made me feel things I wasn't aware could be felt after seeing a film. I almost cried. More than once. That's rare in itself, but on more than one occasion during the same film is pretty much unheard of for me. It was the first film I had ever seen that had made me feel better about myself after the credits rolled. On the way home, I wound up not turning the radio on or anything just so I could reflect on the movie for that much longer and keep this rare, warm, fuzzy feeling for as long as I could.
This is arguably Brad Pitt's best role, at least from the films of his I've seen. Making something like having the mind of a seven year old while having the body of an eighty year old man believable is probably not an easy task, but he pulls it off rather flawlessly. The make-up effects are something to behold, as well. The way these effects are used to show people aging in this film is just remarkable.
I've heard a lot of people compare The Curious Case of Benjamin Button to Forrest Gump. The truth of the matter is that other than both films being told in a narrative style and that characters sit on a bench at some point in both films during the time this story is being told, there really isn't much the two films have in common. I for one prefer Benjamin Button over Forrest Gump, but I'm not taking anything away from either film.
As superb of a film this is, its one downside is its length. That will probably turn a lot of people off. I was a bit weary when I first realized how long it was, but once I was finally in the theater watching the film, it all went by so quickly. My eyes were literally glued to the screen the entire time. The story is sad overall, but it moved me in ways no film has ever done before in the past. It's well worth whatever price you pay for the ticket and it's well worth sitting through the close to three hour duration. I wouldn't tell you it was the best movie of 2008 if I meant otherwise.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Dec 14, 2018
One of the best of 2018
When the dust is settled on 2018, you can be rest assured that GREEN BOOK will be listed as one of my top films of the year.
Yes, it's that good.
"Based on a true story", GREEN BOOK stars Viggo Mortenson (Aragon in the LOTR films) as "Tony Lip" a bouncer at the Copacabana in the early 1960's who is tapped by African American concert pianist Dr. Don Shirley (Academy Award winner Mahershala Ali) to be his driver/escort/security on a tour of a very prejudicial Southern part of the United States in the early 1960's. Both Tony and Dr. Don look down their noses at the other one, but during the course of this film, the two develop mutual respect and a friendship that lasted until the both passed away in 2013.
That is, in essence, the entire plot of this film. But it is not the destination, but rather, the journey that is the core of this film - and what a journey it is.
We, the audience, probably spend 70% of the film in a car with the 2 stars of this film, so they better be interesting to look at and listen to (for nothing much else happens) and both characters - and both actors- are up to the task.
Ali won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his brief turn in Barry Jenkins MOONLIGHT - and he is even better here as Dr. Don Shirley, an elitist virtuoso piano player, with strong pride and hidden secrets of his own. Ali brings a humanity and vulnerability to this character that acts as a softening of the hard shell of this character that allows us, the audience, a glimpse into this character's heart. This person could easily have been a one-note caricature, but in Ali's hands, it is much, much more.
The biggest surprise to me is two-time Oscar Nominee Mortenson as "Tony Lip". While the character starts as a typical early 1960's Italian-mob type, Mortenson brings humor, humanity and (yes) heart to a matter-of-fact character and continues to evolve the rough edges of Tony as Tony, himself, develops throughout the course of the film. I have always "liked but not loved" Mortenson, but, I LOVE HIM in this film and will be rooting for him come Oscars time.
The other big surprise of this film is the strong, subtle and human way that Director Peter Farrelly brings events to the screen. Prior to this, Farrelly (along with his brother Bobby) Directed such over-the-top comedies as THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN, so I was a bit concerned that the Direction would be over-the-top. But...it wasn't...and I wouldn't be surprised if Farelly's name is called when Oscar nominations are announced.
I was charmed and moved by these characters - and this story - and was glad to spend 2 hours with them.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Yes, it's that good.
"Based on a true story", GREEN BOOK stars Viggo Mortenson (Aragon in the LOTR films) as "Tony Lip" a bouncer at the Copacabana in the early 1960's who is tapped by African American concert pianist Dr. Don Shirley (Academy Award winner Mahershala Ali) to be his driver/escort/security on a tour of a very prejudicial Southern part of the United States in the early 1960's. Both Tony and Dr. Don look down their noses at the other one, but during the course of this film, the two develop mutual respect and a friendship that lasted until the both passed away in 2013.
That is, in essence, the entire plot of this film. But it is not the destination, but rather, the journey that is the core of this film - and what a journey it is.
We, the audience, probably spend 70% of the film in a car with the 2 stars of this film, so they better be interesting to look at and listen to (for nothing much else happens) and both characters - and both actors- are up to the task.
Ali won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his brief turn in Barry Jenkins MOONLIGHT - and he is even better here as Dr. Don Shirley, an elitist virtuoso piano player, with strong pride and hidden secrets of his own. Ali brings a humanity and vulnerability to this character that acts as a softening of the hard shell of this character that allows us, the audience, a glimpse into this character's heart. This person could easily have been a one-note caricature, but in Ali's hands, it is much, much more.
The biggest surprise to me is two-time Oscar Nominee Mortenson as "Tony Lip". While the character starts as a typical early 1960's Italian-mob type, Mortenson brings humor, humanity and (yes) heart to a matter-of-fact character and continues to evolve the rough edges of Tony as Tony, himself, develops throughout the course of the film. I have always "liked but not loved" Mortenson, but, I LOVE HIM in this film and will be rooting for him come Oscars time.
The other big surprise of this film is the strong, subtle and human way that Director Peter Farrelly brings events to the screen. Prior to this, Farrelly (along with his brother Bobby) Directed such over-the-top comedies as THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and KINGPIN, so I was a bit concerned that the Direction would be over-the-top. But...it wasn't...and I wouldn't be surprised if Farelly's name is called when Oscar nominations are announced.
I was charmed and moved by these characters - and this story - and was glad to spend 2 hours with them.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Tour Tempo Total Game
Sports and Health & Fitness
App
Used by beginners through Major Championship winners on the PGA Tour, and validated by an...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 19, 2020
I had been wildly swaying between wanting and not wanting to see this, but Cineworld gave us an Unlimited Screening so of course I was going to go.
Life in the media spotlight is difficult enough without having to deal with the unwanted advances and comments of those around you. When one of Fox News' ex-employees comes forward with allegations of sexual harassment the whole network is a buzz as it tries to rally. Roger Ailes has a hold over everyone there and it's time someone put a stop to it.
Before I go into the acting I want to mention the style the movie has. There are sections done to camera in news report style, that seems like a given considering the subject matter, and as well as the "standard" on-screen there's some voiceover on scenes. The whole opening is done to camera in the news style and it sets up the story well, but I wasn't sure I enjoyed that later in the film, I like my fourth wall intact unless it involves Deadpool.
Out of our three leading ladies I was most impressed with Margot Robbie, potentially this is because she wasn't constrained by the role of real life person, Kayla's fictional amalgamation of people and experiences allows for more of a range. At times though I did think the role wasn't going anywhere but seeing her interactions with Lithgow as Ailes, and McKinnon as Carr, I was reassured.
The scene between Roger Ailes and Kayla that becomes the pivotal point in the story for her was excellent while actually being absolutely horrendous. That such a short scene can make me feel so much was a credit to both Robbie and Lithgow... and the sound department. Hearing his breathing so prominently was quite effective in the worst way possible.
Something they successfully managed to do throughout the film is show the competitive nature of the world and just a selection of the hideous things that are put up with through fear and ambition. There's one particular montage of moments with women defending their boss that illustrated that perfectly.
There's a very talented cast hidden in Bombshell, and I say hidden because at least half the people that popped on screen made me drop my jaw in surprise. I hadn't realised how many "cameos" there were, I'm sure I could have discovered them all on IMDb, it certainly helped to keep me interested. Though I don't think it necessarily needed that extra help.
Have you ever read a James Patterson novel? The chapters are so short, everything changes perspective so quickly that you're hooked and suddenly you've read half the book, this movie felt like that. As we switch scenes and characters you're constantly moved along at a pace that keeps you engaged, at no time did I feel like it was getting too confusing to follow, it was very well done.
I enjoyed the film but there's part of me that wonders if it did actually hit the mark. I'm left with one moment in particular that felt a little wrong, later in the movie between Pospisil (Robbie) and Kelly (Theron). It was the only moment that really hit me as feeling out of place. By that point we'd managed to get a lot of ideas about both characters and Kelly's behaviour and Pospisil's reaction stuck out like a sore thumb. It felt like a little slip in something that was otherwise a powerful watch.
While I don't think that every note was hit perfectly, overall Bombshell was a good exploration of this subject. With its impressive acting and great pace it's definitely an interesting addition to the conversations happening in the media at the moment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/bombshell-movie-review.html
Life in the media spotlight is difficult enough without having to deal with the unwanted advances and comments of those around you. When one of Fox News' ex-employees comes forward with allegations of sexual harassment the whole network is a buzz as it tries to rally. Roger Ailes has a hold over everyone there and it's time someone put a stop to it.
Before I go into the acting I want to mention the style the movie has. There are sections done to camera in news report style, that seems like a given considering the subject matter, and as well as the "standard" on-screen there's some voiceover on scenes. The whole opening is done to camera in the news style and it sets up the story well, but I wasn't sure I enjoyed that later in the film, I like my fourth wall intact unless it involves Deadpool.
Out of our three leading ladies I was most impressed with Margot Robbie, potentially this is because she wasn't constrained by the role of real life person, Kayla's fictional amalgamation of people and experiences allows for more of a range. At times though I did think the role wasn't going anywhere but seeing her interactions with Lithgow as Ailes, and McKinnon as Carr, I was reassured.
The scene between Roger Ailes and Kayla that becomes the pivotal point in the story for her was excellent while actually being absolutely horrendous. That such a short scene can make me feel so much was a credit to both Robbie and Lithgow... and the sound department. Hearing his breathing so prominently was quite effective in the worst way possible.
Something they successfully managed to do throughout the film is show the competitive nature of the world and just a selection of the hideous things that are put up with through fear and ambition. There's one particular montage of moments with women defending their boss that illustrated that perfectly.
There's a very talented cast hidden in Bombshell, and I say hidden because at least half the people that popped on screen made me drop my jaw in surprise. I hadn't realised how many "cameos" there were, I'm sure I could have discovered them all on IMDb, it certainly helped to keep me interested. Though I don't think it necessarily needed that extra help.
Have you ever read a James Patterson novel? The chapters are so short, everything changes perspective so quickly that you're hooked and suddenly you've read half the book, this movie felt like that. As we switch scenes and characters you're constantly moved along at a pace that keeps you engaged, at no time did I feel like it was getting too confusing to follow, it was very well done.
I enjoyed the film but there's part of me that wonders if it did actually hit the mark. I'm left with one moment in particular that felt a little wrong, later in the movie between Pospisil (Robbie) and Kelly (Theron). It was the only moment that really hit me as feeling out of place. By that point we'd managed to get a lot of ideas about both characters and Kelly's behaviour and Pospisil's reaction stuck out like a sore thumb. It felt like a little slip in something that was otherwise a powerful watch.
While I don't think that every note was hit perfectly, overall Bombshell was a good exploration of this subject. With its impressive acting and great pace it's definitely an interesting addition to the conversations happening in the media at the moment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/bombshell-movie-review.html