Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Tour-de-Force filmmaking
I have just viewed the film that WILL WIN the Oscars for Best Picture, Director and Cinematography (and probably many, many more).
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A “Good Guy” meting out justice in a bad way.
There’s something really satisfying about seeing our ‘hero’ Robert McCall giving bad ‘uns a bloody nose (and far worse) as immediate punishment for a crime committed. My parent’s pre-war generation would wax lyrical about the days when police officers or teachers could give a kid a “good box around the ears” as a lesson for a minor infringement. (“Ah, the good old days…. That’ll learn ‘im”!). But equally there’s also the queasy feeling here that this is a vigilante being judge, jury and executioner. Thank GOODNESS then that it’s Denzel Washington and he’s OBVIOUSLY a good guy that will never get it wrong!
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Rock 'n' Film: Cinema's Dance with Popular Music
Book
Rock 'N' Film presents a cultural history of films about US and British rock music during the period...
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
8.8
Rate It
Movie Watch
Meticulously directed by David Lean at a then-record studio cost of $13 million, the Sam Spiegel...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Fish Called Wanda (1988) in Movies
Jul 2, 2020
A Jolly Good Time
A member of my family mentioned when discussing the 1988 John Cleese comedy A FISH CALLED WANDA that you can tell much about a person over what part of this film that you like the most. Do you like:
a). The John Cleese/Jamie Lee Curtis love story
b). The "caper"
c). The beleaguered, unsuccessful hit-man Ken
d). The old lady and her 3 dogs
e). Kevin Kline as Otto
For me, that's easy - ALL OF IT! I find that A FISH CALLED WANDA is a very funny, richly acted comedy/caper that brings forth 4 characters that are easy to spend 2 hours with. Starting with John Cleese as Barrister Archie Leach. Cleese conceived, wrote, starred-in and (at times) directed this film and his "British humor" (honed from years as a member of the MONTY PYTHON comedy troupe) is in full force here. He has a reserved appearance about him that covers a wild man underneath yearning to break free.
Jamie Lee Curtis is quite good as the center of the film, Wanda Gershwitz, a cunning conman who will stop at nothing - and step over everyone - to get what she wants. I find that Curtis is under-rated as an actress and a comedienne and this picture shows that she can hold her own against 3 comedy greats at the top of their game.
The 2nd member of the Monty Python troupe to appear in this film is the remarkable Michael Palin as hapless hit-man, Ken. He becomes increasingly frustrated and frantic -and increasingly funny - as he attempts to complete his assignment throughout the course of this film.
But...the real star of this film...and the actor/character that steals the film away from everyone else...is Kevin Kline's Oscar winning performance as Otto, Wanda's erstwhile love who has a very high opinion of himself. It is rare that a comedic performance wins an Oscar - Kline's win is the the last one to do so - but it is easy to see why the Academy decided to reward Kline for it is a committed performance that is wild, wacky and over-the-top, but not overtly so. Kline has been very good in many other pictures/performances before and after this film, but he never reached the height that he reached in this film.
The film has veteran director Charles Crichton listed as Director with Cleese listed as co-Director (though Cleese insisted that Crichton did all the work and he only put his name on it to assuage the fears of studio executives over Crichton's advanced age). Well...Crichton does a wonderful job of letting the lunacy explode on the scene while keeping a lid on it and moving the action along at a brisk pace.
Wanda is one of those films that people remember fondly, but do not revisit. I would highly recommend you do, it's a jolly good time.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
a). The John Cleese/Jamie Lee Curtis love story
b). The "caper"
c). The beleaguered, unsuccessful hit-man Ken
d). The old lady and her 3 dogs
e). Kevin Kline as Otto
For me, that's easy - ALL OF IT! I find that A FISH CALLED WANDA is a very funny, richly acted comedy/caper that brings forth 4 characters that are easy to spend 2 hours with. Starting with John Cleese as Barrister Archie Leach. Cleese conceived, wrote, starred-in and (at times) directed this film and his "British humor" (honed from years as a member of the MONTY PYTHON comedy troupe) is in full force here. He has a reserved appearance about him that covers a wild man underneath yearning to break free.
Jamie Lee Curtis is quite good as the center of the film, Wanda Gershwitz, a cunning conman who will stop at nothing - and step over everyone - to get what she wants. I find that Curtis is under-rated as an actress and a comedienne and this picture shows that she can hold her own against 3 comedy greats at the top of their game.
The 2nd member of the Monty Python troupe to appear in this film is the remarkable Michael Palin as hapless hit-man, Ken. He becomes increasingly frustrated and frantic -and increasingly funny - as he attempts to complete his assignment throughout the course of this film.
But...the real star of this film...and the actor/character that steals the film away from everyone else...is Kevin Kline's Oscar winning performance as Otto, Wanda's erstwhile love who has a very high opinion of himself. It is rare that a comedic performance wins an Oscar - Kline's win is the the last one to do so - but it is easy to see why the Academy decided to reward Kline for it is a committed performance that is wild, wacky and over-the-top, but not overtly so. Kline has been very good in many other pictures/performances before and after this film, but he never reached the height that he reached in this film.
The film has veteran director Charles Crichton listed as Director with Cleese listed as co-Director (though Cleese insisted that Crichton did all the work and he only put his name on it to assuage the fears of studio executives over Crichton's advanced age). Well...Crichton does a wonderful job of letting the lunacy explode on the scene while keeping a lid on it and moving the action along at a brisk pace.
Wanda is one of those films that people remember fondly, but do not revisit. I would highly recommend you do, it's a jolly good time.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Villain (1971) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Villain starts as we see how gangster Vic Dakin (Burton) controls London, he has people that will grass on him to the cops with Inspector Bob Matthews (Davenport) trying to bring down the criminal.
Vic continues to use his business connections to stay ahead of the police, with Wolfe Lissner (McShane) being the latest person the inspectors are turning to try and give up Vic’s secrets.
Thoughts on Villain
Characters – Vic Dakin runs London with his criminal activities, he is feared by most people and if you cross him, you will get hurt if not killed. He has become over confident that he can get away with anything, making him one of the prime targets for everyone involved in law. Wolf Lissner works for Vic, he is one of the youngster members of the crew and the one that the police are trying to use to turn on him, even if he the one person that Vic will always turn to. Bob Matthews is the inspector that has been trying to bring down Vic for years, he has risen up the ranks, got the people in the gang, but never been able to get the conviction. Gerald Draycott is the politician that is being blackmailed to keep the business under wraps for Vic.
Performances – We do have two big names in his film, first Richard Burton that doesn’t get to show the skill he could bring to a film, while a younger Ian McShane shows us that he could be set for a career in this sidekick gangster role. The rest of the cast are doing all they need to without being in anyway stand out through the film.
Story – The story follows a gangster that has the power over London, the police have been hunting him for years, but he always finds a way to get out of trouble. This time they get closer than ever before and could finally take down one of the biggest gangsters in London. When it comes to the gangster genre, we don’t really ever get much different when it comes to where the story goes, this one is based loosely on the Kray brother, but for some reason only one of the twins. It does feel like we have seen everything before, we don’t get drawn into support either side of the battle and end up feeling like it is just another gangster film.
Crime – The crime world we enter shows us just where the criminals operate and just where the police will need to turn to, in any hope of bringing him down.
Settings – The film is mostly set in London which see just how the criminals operate, where they can get away from crime.
Scene of the Movie – The opening scene as we see just how Vic can operate.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The final shot.
Final Thoughts – This is a typical British gangster film that starts with an intense opening, only to become a drag as the film unfolds.
Overall: British Gangster 101.
Vic continues to use his business connections to stay ahead of the police, with Wolfe Lissner (McShane) being the latest person the inspectors are turning to try and give up Vic’s secrets.
Thoughts on Villain
Characters – Vic Dakin runs London with his criminal activities, he is feared by most people and if you cross him, you will get hurt if not killed. He has become over confident that he can get away with anything, making him one of the prime targets for everyone involved in law. Wolf Lissner works for Vic, he is one of the youngster members of the crew and the one that the police are trying to use to turn on him, even if he the one person that Vic will always turn to. Bob Matthews is the inspector that has been trying to bring down Vic for years, he has risen up the ranks, got the people in the gang, but never been able to get the conviction. Gerald Draycott is the politician that is being blackmailed to keep the business under wraps for Vic.
Performances – We do have two big names in his film, first Richard Burton that doesn’t get to show the skill he could bring to a film, while a younger Ian McShane shows us that he could be set for a career in this sidekick gangster role. The rest of the cast are doing all they need to without being in anyway stand out through the film.
Story – The story follows a gangster that has the power over London, the police have been hunting him for years, but he always finds a way to get out of trouble. This time they get closer than ever before and could finally take down one of the biggest gangsters in London. When it comes to the gangster genre, we don’t really ever get much different when it comes to where the story goes, this one is based loosely on the Kray brother, but for some reason only one of the twins. It does feel like we have seen everything before, we don’t get drawn into support either side of the battle and end up feeling like it is just another gangster film.
Crime – The crime world we enter shows us just where the criminals operate and just where the police will need to turn to, in any hope of bringing him down.
Settings – The film is mostly set in London which see just how the criminals operate, where they can get away from crime.
Scene of the Movie – The opening scene as we see just how Vic can operate.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The final shot.
Final Thoughts – This is a typical British gangster film that starts with an intense opening, only to become a drag as the film unfolds.
Overall: British Gangster 101.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Hopkins Manuscript in Books
Mar 21, 2019
Powerfully moving, surprisingly obscure British SF novel. Eerily prescient in some ways: written in 1939 but set from 1945 onward, the story is told by Edgar Hopkins, a retired schoolteacher and champion poultry-breeder who is one of the first men in the country to learn of an impending cataclysm - the moon has been knocked from its orbit and will collide with the Earth in a matter of months. Hopkins' ability to tell the story is impaired by his own pompousness, powerful sense of self-regard and unerring ability to miss the significance of anything going on around him.
Initially it reads like a very black, absurdist comedy, but as the book progresses it becomes genuinely poignant and moving - almost a eulogy for an idea of England soon to be wiped away forever. I have no idea how much the author was motivated by fears of the coming Second World War, but its presence hangs inescapably over the book. The actual science in the book is rather risible, and (like much other mid-20th century British SF) the film also contains race-related elements that some modern readers could find problematic, but the core of the book remains as significant and thought-provoking as ever.
Initially it reads like a very black, absurdist comedy, but as the book progresses it becomes genuinely poignant and moving - almost a eulogy for an idea of England soon to be wiped away forever. I have no idea how much the author was motivated by fears of the coming Second World War, but its presence hangs inescapably over the book. The actual science in the book is rather risible, and (like much other mid-20th century British SF) the film also contains race-related elements that some modern readers could find problematic, but the core of the book remains as significant and thought-provoking as ever.
JT (287 KP) rated Hereafter (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
It’s an interesting film that will leave you asking yourself one question, “did Clint Eastwood really direct it?” And the answer, yes, he did. It’s not that the film is particularly bad but then it’s not really that good either, and you wonder if while his latest film J. Edgar was in pre-production he got bored and decided to fill the void.
Having worked with Damon on Invictus Eastwood brought him in for this, as George Lonegan a man with the gift of being able to talk to people that have passed to the other side. The opening half an hour is an intense watch as we watch De France’s reporter get caught up in a terrible Tsunami while holidaying with her boyfriend. It’s a well shot natural disaster which Roland Emmerich himself would have been proud.
Damon himself battling not to use his ‘gift’ despite the ongoing pressures from his brother, chooses of all things a cooking class as a method of escapism. There he meets Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard) and the two form a bond, to which George ruins by accepting to perfrom a reading which doesn’t go as well as hoped.
I wanted to see her come back at some point during the film, but alas she doesn’t which was a disappointment as Howard was one of the few shining lights. The third part of the story, all of which interlock into each other, follow British twins Marcus and Jason. Two of the worst child actors I think I have ever seen, one can imagine that is from lack of experience.
With one of the boys dying in a freak accident the lone brother goes on a journey of his own, of which brings him closer to eventual contact with George. The film tries to be deep and meaningful about what happens to people who suffer death experiences, but its way off Eastwood’s sharp and cool direction – a shame when it started so brightly.
Having worked with Damon on Invictus Eastwood brought him in for this, as George Lonegan a man with the gift of being able to talk to people that have passed to the other side. The opening half an hour is an intense watch as we watch De France’s reporter get caught up in a terrible Tsunami while holidaying with her boyfriend. It’s a well shot natural disaster which Roland Emmerich himself would have been proud.
Damon himself battling not to use his ‘gift’ despite the ongoing pressures from his brother, chooses of all things a cooking class as a method of escapism. There he meets Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard) and the two form a bond, to which George ruins by accepting to perfrom a reading which doesn’t go as well as hoped.
I wanted to see her come back at some point during the film, but alas she doesn’t which was a disappointment as Howard was one of the few shining lights. The third part of the story, all of which interlock into each other, follow British twins Marcus and Jason. Two of the worst child actors I think I have ever seen, one can imagine that is from lack of experience.
With one of the boys dying in a freak accident the lone brother goes on a journey of his own, of which brings him closer to eventual contact with George. The film tries to be deep and meaningful about what happens to people who suffer death experiences, but its way off Eastwood’s sharp and cool direction – a shame when it started so brightly.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Captain America: The First Avenger is a return to form for the Marvel comic-book film universe, and a solid final lead-up to the multi-hero film The Avengers, coming next year.
Chris Evans does a fantastic job of introducing us to the wiry little guy with guts who eventually becomes Captain America. Such unashamed, honest virtue is different from the typical superhero movie we’ve come to see over the last few years, and for good reason: internal conflicts often make for dramatic films. However, I don’t think such unwavering idealism would have worked with any other comic-book character than Captain America. Stanley Tucci and Tommy Lee Jones add heart to the movie, but the soul of this movie really is the Captain. Hugo Weaving as The Red Skull plays a satisfying villain here, but his motives aren’t clarified enough to warrant his fervor for evil. Hayley Atwell, playing love interest and British agent Peggy Carter does a more convincing job in her role than Hugo Weaving does in his.
The plot of the film was pretty standard fare. Hero battles villain. The ending was more climactic and earnest than I had expected walking into the theater, and it gracefully sets up the Avengers movie. Like many of the other Marvel movies of recent note, there is a decent amount of self-deprecating comic book humor that helps break up the slower parts between action scenes.
The effects of the film were solid. They were pulpy enough to feel like a Marvel universe, rather than our own, but they still carried the action to an exciting level. The art department and cinematographer did a good job recreating the 40’s asthetic throughout the film, though there was enough exotic comic book elements to bring you back into a world where superheroes really do exist.
Despite its own flaws, this is one of the better Marvel films to come out since Iron Man, and count me in to watch The Avengers next year.
Chris Evans does a fantastic job of introducing us to the wiry little guy with guts who eventually becomes Captain America. Such unashamed, honest virtue is different from the typical superhero movie we’ve come to see over the last few years, and for good reason: internal conflicts often make for dramatic films. However, I don’t think such unwavering idealism would have worked with any other comic-book character than Captain America. Stanley Tucci and Tommy Lee Jones add heart to the movie, but the soul of this movie really is the Captain. Hugo Weaving as The Red Skull plays a satisfying villain here, but his motives aren’t clarified enough to warrant his fervor for evil. Hayley Atwell, playing love interest and British agent Peggy Carter does a more convincing job in her role than Hugo Weaving does in his.
The plot of the film was pretty standard fare. Hero battles villain. The ending was more climactic and earnest than I had expected walking into the theater, and it gracefully sets up the Avengers movie. Like many of the other Marvel movies of recent note, there is a decent amount of self-deprecating comic book humor that helps break up the slower parts between action scenes.
The effects of the film were solid. They were pulpy enough to feel like a Marvel universe, rather than our own, but they still carried the action to an exciting level. The art department and cinematographer did a good job recreating the 40’s asthetic throughout the film, though there was enough exotic comic book elements to bring you back into a world where superheroes really do exist.
Despite its own flaws, this is one of the better Marvel films to come out since Iron Man, and count me in to watch The Avengers next year.
Bringing Up Baby
6.0
Rate It
Book
?Bringing Up Baby, directed by Howard Hawks in 1938, is one of the greatest screwball comedies and a...