Search
Search results
Bird (1700 KP) created a video about Get Out (2017) in Movies
Jun 26, 2017
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Cabin in the Woods (2012) in Movies
Dec 29, 2019 (Updated Jan 22, 2020)
I absolutely love The Cabin in the Woods. It's masquerades as a straight up horror flick but with a ridiculous curve ball thrown in(no spoilers here, but seriously, watch it already!), that manages to subvert everything you would expect from a standard slasher type horror.
The cast are all great - Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, and Jesse Williams - all play typically heightened stereotypes of the kind of run of the mill teenage cannon fodder you usually find within the genre, and with the film's tongue firmly in cheek, it hard to not like any of them.
Then you also have Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford providing the majority of the comic relief, and the two of them together are pretty funny, and seem to be having a ball filming.
The narrative of The Cabin in the Woods is the secret ingredient here though. It's fun, it's different, and when the aforementioned twist arrives, it shifts heard pretty quickly, providing one if the most absurd and memorable final acts I've seen in a horror movie.
The gore and violence on display is truly astonishing, and it's nice to see that the effects teams on board used a lot of practical effects to achieve a lot of this, with digital effects used only when necessary. The costume designs for a certain aspect of the film are fantastic as well (still trying to avoid spoilers).
I can't for the life of me see why anyone who likes horror wouldn't get a kick out of The Cabin in the Woods. It tries to do something different, and in my opinion pulls it off with flying bloody colours, and is easily one of my favourite horrors out there.
The cast are all great - Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, and Jesse Williams - all play typically heightened stereotypes of the kind of run of the mill teenage cannon fodder you usually find within the genre, and with the film's tongue firmly in cheek, it hard to not like any of them.
Then you also have Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford providing the majority of the comic relief, and the two of them together are pretty funny, and seem to be having a ball filming.
The narrative of The Cabin in the Woods is the secret ingredient here though. It's fun, it's different, and when the aforementioned twist arrives, it shifts heard pretty quickly, providing one if the most absurd and memorable final acts I've seen in a horror movie.
The gore and violence on display is truly astonishing, and it's nice to see that the effects teams on board used a lot of practical effects to achieve a lot of this, with digital effects used only when necessary. The costume designs for a certain aspect of the film are fantastic as well (still trying to avoid spoilers).
I can't for the life of me see why anyone who likes horror wouldn't get a kick out of The Cabin in the Woods. It tries to do something different, and in my opinion pulls it off with flying bloody colours, and is easily one of my favourite horrors out there.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Get Out (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“It really doesn’t matter if you’re ‘Black or White”.
Due to a mixture of holiday, work commitments and sickness (I would not wish to inflict my bronchial cough on ANY cinema audience for a while) I haven’t been to the cinema in over a month… shocking. But it has given me a chance to catch up on some of the films in 2017 (and a few from last year) that I hadn’t got to see. So this will be the first of a series of such “DVD” reviews.
“Get Out” was written and directed by Jordan Peele and was his directorial debut. And a hot item on his resume it is too.
Daniel Kaluuya (“Sicario”) plays African-American Chris Washington who, nervously, takes a trip ‘upstate’ to meet the parents of his cute white girlfriend Rose (Allison Williams). The parents, Dean (Bradley Whitford, best known as Josh Lyman from “The West Wing”) and Missy (Catherine Keener, “ Captain Phillips”), are extremely welcoming.
But the weekend coincides with an “annual gathering” of family and friends, and events quickly take a left turn into “The Twilight Zone”, with anti-smoking hypnosis and a bizarre game of Bingo where the win is so substantial that playing becomes a ‘no brainer’. Can Chris ‘Get Out’, with his mind still intact, before it’s too late?
This is a really clever script by Peele. The film baits you into thinking this is some redneck-inter-racial-revenge flick, but actually the colour of the skin is almost irrelevant. (Or is it? This angle is left deliciously vague). Some of the filming is spectacularly creepy, with the hypnosis scene being reminiscent to me of the excellent “Under The Skin”. And never has a teaspoon in a cup of tea been a more devastating weapon.
I seemed to have talked at length this year in this blog on the subject of the “physics of horror”: the story elements hanging together in a satisfying – albeit sometimes in an unbelievable – way. “Get Out” delivers this to perfection, keeping its powder dry until the closing moments of the film before delivering a series of satisfying “Ah!” relevatory moments.
While the ‘physics’ of the film is good the ‘biology’ is bonkers, featuring a plot point from the terrible first episode of the 3rd season of the original “Star Trek” (if you can be bothered to look that up!). But I’ll forgive this, parking my incredulity, to salute what I think is one of the year’s most novel and impressive low-budget indie horror films.
“Get Out” was written and directed by Jordan Peele and was his directorial debut. And a hot item on his resume it is too.
Daniel Kaluuya (“Sicario”) plays African-American Chris Washington who, nervously, takes a trip ‘upstate’ to meet the parents of his cute white girlfriend Rose (Allison Williams). The parents, Dean (Bradley Whitford, best known as Josh Lyman from “The West Wing”) and Missy (Catherine Keener, “ Captain Phillips”), are extremely welcoming.
But the weekend coincides with an “annual gathering” of family and friends, and events quickly take a left turn into “The Twilight Zone”, with anti-smoking hypnosis and a bizarre game of Bingo where the win is so substantial that playing becomes a ‘no brainer’. Can Chris ‘Get Out’, with his mind still intact, before it’s too late?
This is a really clever script by Peele. The film baits you into thinking this is some redneck-inter-racial-revenge flick, but actually the colour of the skin is almost irrelevant. (Or is it? This angle is left deliciously vague). Some of the filming is spectacularly creepy, with the hypnosis scene being reminiscent to me of the excellent “Under The Skin”. And never has a teaspoon in a cup of tea been a more devastating weapon.
I seemed to have talked at length this year in this blog on the subject of the “physics of horror”: the story elements hanging together in a satisfying – albeit sometimes in an unbelievable – way. “Get Out” delivers this to perfection, keeping its powder dry until the closing moments of the film before delivering a series of satisfying “Ah!” relevatory moments.
While the ‘physics’ of the film is good the ‘biology’ is bonkers, featuring a plot point from the terrible first episode of the 3rd season of the original “Star Trek” (if you can be bothered to look that up!). But I’ll forgive this, parking my incredulity, to salute what I think is one of the year’s most novel and impressive low-budget indie horror films.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated tick, tick...Boom! (2021) in Movies
Jan 11, 2022
A Love Letter
If you ever worked on a live theater performance, whether as a performer, tech crew, make-up, costumes, box office, etc…the Netflix Original film tick, tick…BOOM is for you.
If you are a theater lover, the Netflix Original film tick, tick…BOOM is for you.
If you are not interested in live theater at all..then, perhaps, tick, tick…BOOM might be a little too “inside baseball” for you.
Based on the one man concert/show/performance by the late Jonathan Larson, the writer of the the Pulitzer Prize winning musical RENT, tick, tick…BOOM expands this performance piece and turns it into a biopic of the artist who passed as his hit musical was just about ready to debut.
As written by Steven Levenson and Directed by Lin-Manuel Miranda, tick, tick…BOOM is a love letter to Broadway, to artists struggling to make it in the Great White Way, to the community of disaffected peoples in 1990 and, mostly, to Jonathan Larson himself.
Andrew Garfield is transcendent in his portrayal of Larson. He embodies this character with love, ambition, focus, flaws and a surprisingly strong singing voice. It is an Oscar-nomination worthy performance.
He is joined, lovingly, by a strong supporting cast starting with Alexandra Shipp (as Larson’s girlfriend), Robin de Jesus (as his best friend) and Vanessa Hudgens (as a performer in the show, called Superbia, that he is trying to get up on the boards). These young performers are joined by a couple of wily veterans including Judith Light (as his Agent) and Bradley Whitford (as the late Stephen Sondheim). They bring energy, star power and…yes…love…to the screen.
And that is what this film ultimately is, a love letter to all of the artists (both on-stage and off) that try, despite immeasurable odds, to get a show on it’s feet. Director Miranda infuses this film with homages to theater - and theater people - and sprinkles in some very good songs that drives this point home.
None of the numbers hit home as hard as the “Diner” song - a song that features many, many Broadway performers, both new and old, that were either inspirations to Larson - or were inspired by him (including Miranda himself).
Come for the musical, stay for the outstanding performance of Garfield, and immerse yourself into the world of struggling artists in NYC in the 1990’s. You’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you are a theater lover, the Netflix Original film tick, tick…BOOM is for you.
If you are not interested in live theater at all..then, perhaps, tick, tick…BOOM might be a little too “inside baseball” for you.
Based on the one man concert/show/performance by the late Jonathan Larson, the writer of the the Pulitzer Prize winning musical RENT, tick, tick…BOOM expands this performance piece and turns it into a biopic of the artist who passed as his hit musical was just about ready to debut.
As written by Steven Levenson and Directed by Lin-Manuel Miranda, tick, tick…BOOM is a love letter to Broadway, to artists struggling to make it in the Great White Way, to the community of disaffected peoples in 1990 and, mostly, to Jonathan Larson himself.
Andrew Garfield is transcendent in his portrayal of Larson. He embodies this character with love, ambition, focus, flaws and a surprisingly strong singing voice. It is an Oscar-nomination worthy performance.
He is joined, lovingly, by a strong supporting cast starting with Alexandra Shipp (as Larson’s girlfriend), Robin de Jesus (as his best friend) and Vanessa Hudgens (as a performer in the show, called Superbia, that he is trying to get up on the boards). These young performers are joined by a couple of wily veterans including Judith Light (as his Agent) and Bradley Whitford (as the late Stephen Sondheim). They bring energy, star power and…yes…love…to the screen.
And that is what this film ultimately is, a love letter to all of the artists (both on-stage and off) that try, despite immeasurable odds, to get a show on it’s feet. Director Miranda infuses this film with homages to theater - and theater people - and sprinkles in some very good songs that drives this point home.
None of the numbers hit home as hard as the “Diner” song - a song that features many, many Broadway performers, both new and old, that were either inspirations to Larson - or were inspired by him (including Miranda himself).
Come for the musical, stay for the outstanding performance of Garfield, and immerse yourself into the world of struggling artists in NYC in the 1990’s. You’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
JT (287 KP) rated The Cabin in the Woods (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
What happens if you took a bunch of stereotypical and archetypal teenagers into the woods and let them party in a small cabin? In the eyes of Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard quite a bit it seems.
The college jock, the stoner, the virgin, the geek and the whore (or slut) are all grouped together ready to be ripped apart by a wide variety of insanely bonkers creatures.
A so called ‘love letter to horror’ Cabin in the Woods encapsulates everything we have ever seen in horror films over there years, and for any fan of the genre its what we all love to see.
What makes this film particularly special and something that sets it apart from all other horror films is apparent in the opening few minutes.
Deep in what seems to be a scientific layer, Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) and Hadley (Bradley Whitford) discuss and mull over the mundane as they make their way to a control centre ready for the days events to unfold. Just another day at the office then?
Meanwhile, the travelling party are making their way to the cabin, and after we see a bird of prey fly into what looks like a force field we known this isn’t going to be your normal run of the mill horror.
OK, move it a little to the right!
In one word its the Truman show with massive amounts of blood, which might be giving too much away for those that haven’t even seen it yet. The film has several nods to a number of past Hollywood horror greats such as Hellraiser and Evil Dead, and carries with it every cliche the genre has to offer.
Whedon’s popularity as a director is high, here though he keeps himself to writing duties only as Goddard gets the gig behind the camera in his first feature. It’s a thoroughly entertaining film, but you need to take it with a pinch of salt and remind yourself that this is a homage to horror with Hostel like tendencies.
It’s all balanced neatly with black comedy and has an a final 20 minutes which really has to been seen to be believed
It’s all balanced neatly with black comedy and has an a final 20 minutes which really has to been seen to be believed, with a great cameo thrown in for good measure. I loved every minute of this from start to finish, and it’s a film that doesn’t try and take itself too seriously.
It’s not going to sit with everyone, but for those true horror fans who have watched parties of teenagers getting picked off one by one in a creative way each time it will be one horror film they won’t forget in a hurry.
The college jock, the stoner, the virgin, the geek and the whore (or slut) are all grouped together ready to be ripped apart by a wide variety of insanely bonkers creatures.
A so called ‘love letter to horror’ Cabin in the Woods encapsulates everything we have ever seen in horror films over there years, and for any fan of the genre its what we all love to see.
What makes this film particularly special and something that sets it apart from all other horror films is apparent in the opening few minutes.
Deep in what seems to be a scientific layer, Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) and Hadley (Bradley Whitford) discuss and mull over the mundane as they make their way to a control centre ready for the days events to unfold. Just another day at the office then?
Meanwhile, the travelling party are making their way to the cabin, and after we see a bird of prey fly into what looks like a force field we known this isn’t going to be your normal run of the mill horror.
OK, move it a little to the right!
In one word its the Truman show with massive amounts of blood, which might be giving too much away for those that haven’t even seen it yet. The film has several nods to a number of past Hollywood horror greats such as Hellraiser and Evil Dead, and carries with it every cliche the genre has to offer.
Whedon’s popularity as a director is high, here though he keeps himself to writing duties only as Goddard gets the gig behind the camera in his first feature. It’s a thoroughly entertaining film, but you need to take it with a pinch of salt and remind yourself that this is a homage to horror with Hostel like tendencies.
It’s all balanced neatly with black comedy and has an a final 20 minutes which really has to been seen to be believed
It’s all balanced neatly with black comedy and has an a final 20 minutes which really has to been seen to be believed, with a great cameo thrown in for good measure. I loved every minute of this from start to finish, and it’s a film that doesn’t try and take itself too seriously.
It’s not going to sit with everyone, but for those true horror fans who have watched parties of teenagers getting picked off one by one in a creative way each time it will be one horror film they won’t forget in a hurry.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 5, 2019
Good Enough - Monsters Fighting Each Other
I grew up in the 1960's watching old monster movies on Saturday afternoons on an old black and white TV in the home I grew up in. A staple of these Saturday afternoon movies was the Godzilla monster movies from Japan, featuring such great monsters as Godzilla, Mothra, Rodan and Ghidorah. So, imagine my excitement when I realized that they all would be in the same film.
And...that film...GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS...delivers the goods just fine. Sometimes you go to the movie theater looking for laughs, sometimes you are looking to cry, sometimes you are looking to have your mind stimulated with interesting thoughts and ideas and sometimes you just want to watch giant monsters battling it out over the remnants of Fenway Park in Boston.
The 3rd in the "Monarch Series" of films from Warner Brothers (following the surprisingly good 2014 GODZILLA film and the fun KONG: SKULL ISLAND movie of 2017), GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS follows Monarch as they find (and in some instances, re-awaken) giant monsters - TITANS as they are called - the Titans attempt to take over the planet from the humans (there's a "save the planet" message that is being used as the excuse)...but here comes good ol' Godzilla to save the day.
Besides the monsters, there are quite a few humans along for the ride...Kyle Chandler and Vera Famiga as a dysfunctional couple (who also happen to be experts in Monsters) who are trying to keep in check their daughter, Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS). Ken Watanbe, Sally Hawkins and Jason Strahairn reprise their roles as members of MONARCH from the 2014 GODZILLA film, 2 veritable "that person" actors, Thomas Middleditch & Aisha Hinds as other members of Monarch along with Ziya Zhang and O'Shea Jackson, Jr. - all of these actors are "serviceable" to the plot and machinations, reacting appropriately to the green screen carnage and monsters that they are pretending to react to. Only Bradley Whitford (as a Monarch Scientist) rises above things with a goofy, "almost too over the top" performance that captures the spirit of the proceedings. Add into this good ol' Tywin Lannister himself (Charles Dance) as a shadowy, non-feeling bad guy that seems to have an inexhaustible supply of men and material - kind of like Tywinn Lannister - and the "human side" of this movie is fun...enough.
But, make no mistake about it, this film - and the reason I came to see it - is to watch giant monsters fighting each other and destroying everything in their wake and this film delivers the goods. Director Micheal Dougherty ( KRAMPUS) does a "serviceable" job keeping the action moving and coherent while avoiding (for the most part) the headache-inducing "quick-cut" editing sequence. There's nothing much new or innovative in his approach to showing us monsters fighting and creating massive destruction, but he doesn't take away from the spectacle of the action on the screen so that's a good thing..
There are 2 more Godzilla films currently "on the books" to be produced - including next year's KONG vs. GODZILLA - which will keep me coming back to the IMAX in the multiplex for years to come...and that's just fine with me.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And...that film...GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS...delivers the goods just fine. Sometimes you go to the movie theater looking for laughs, sometimes you are looking to cry, sometimes you are looking to have your mind stimulated with interesting thoughts and ideas and sometimes you just want to watch giant monsters battling it out over the remnants of Fenway Park in Boston.
The 3rd in the "Monarch Series" of films from Warner Brothers (following the surprisingly good 2014 GODZILLA film and the fun KONG: SKULL ISLAND movie of 2017), GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS follows Monarch as they find (and in some instances, re-awaken) giant monsters - TITANS as they are called - the Titans attempt to take over the planet from the humans (there's a "save the planet" message that is being used as the excuse)...but here comes good ol' Godzilla to save the day.
Besides the monsters, there are quite a few humans along for the ride...Kyle Chandler and Vera Famiga as a dysfunctional couple (who also happen to be experts in Monsters) who are trying to keep in check their daughter, Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS). Ken Watanbe, Sally Hawkins and Jason Strahairn reprise their roles as members of MONARCH from the 2014 GODZILLA film, 2 veritable "that person" actors, Thomas Middleditch & Aisha Hinds as other members of Monarch along with Ziya Zhang and O'Shea Jackson, Jr. - all of these actors are "serviceable" to the plot and machinations, reacting appropriately to the green screen carnage and monsters that they are pretending to react to. Only Bradley Whitford (as a Monarch Scientist) rises above things with a goofy, "almost too over the top" performance that captures the spirit of the proceedings. Add into this good ol' Tywin Lannister himself (Charles Dance) as a shadowy, non-feeling bad guy that seems to have an inexhaustible supply of men and material - kind of like Tywinn Lannister - and the "human side" of this movie is fun...enough.
But, make no mistake about it, this film - and the reason I came to see it - is to watch giant monsters fighting each other and destroying everything in their wake and this film delivers the goods. Director Micheal Dougherty ( KRAMPUS) does a "serviceable" job keeping the action moving and coherent while avoiding (for the most part) the headache-inducing "quick-cut" editing sequence. There's nothing much new or innovative in his approach to showing us monsters fighting and creating massive destruction, but he doesn't take away from the spectacle of the action on the screen so that's a good thing..
There are 2 more Godzilla films currently "on the books" to be produced - including next year's KONG vs. GODZILLA - which will keep me coming back to the IMAX in the multiplex for years to come...and that's just fine with me.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Neil Goddard (3 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
No Actors Required
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have a theory about movies that are 100% CGI; when someone isn’t a great actor and they are required only to supply a voice and they still aren’t very good, it really stands out.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.