Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Rock of Ages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Rock of Ages is a film adaptation of the 2006 Chris D’Arienzo comedy rock/jukebox Broadway musical.
It is lightly satirical, a parody at times, that seems to mock our beloved 80’s rock era, while honoring its eccentricities, its tight leopard print pants, big hair, shoulder pads and over the top MTV music videos.
I like to judge a movie not only by how it makes me feel but also by how the audience reacts. This wasn’t an in-your-face-slapstick comedy, yet the whole theater roared with laughter throughout the film. To sum up the experience of Rock of Ages, it’s like watching a string of 80’s music videos mashed into a weak plot, with well-timed laughing points. Some of us laughed because we remember being the ones with those crazy hair-dos and out-of-control fashion sense and some were just laughing because this movie was so well done. It walked the fine line between super over-the-top corny and truly honoring our rock heritage. This movie does play to a specific demographic of ages 30 to 50, those who, with great nostalgia, remember how the 80’s rock and fashion revolution shaped their lives.
As the song goes, just a small town girl, Sherrie Christian played by Julianne Hough, travels to the big city in search of her dreams of becoming a singer, where she meets her city boy, Drew Boley played by Diego Boneta. Together they embark on a musical romance while working at a rock club named The Bourbon Room. Alec Baldwin plays an old rocker named Dennis Dupree struggling to keep his legend of a night club/concert hall open. Russell Brand, as always, steps in as the comic relief while playing the club owner;s assistant named Lonny. Together they work to keep The Bourbon Room afloat while dealing with a vengeful Patricia Whitmore, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, who wishes nothing more then to see The Bourbon Room burned to the ground.
There are points in this movie when the acting, the singing and yes, even the plot, grabs you and holds your attention, much like watching the train wreck we call 80’s fashion. Its painful but you can’t look away! There were other times in this movie when the singing felt like it would go on forever. I noticed that the low points would be immediately succeeded by a very entertaining turn of events, so my attention was not lost for long. There came a point, at about the third Glee style 80’s rock mash-up, where I felt like slapping the director, Adam Shankman. Even too much of a good thing can get boring and I felt Shankman reached that point several times in the film. Luckily, he redeemed himself by bringing in Tom Cruise to play the Satan worshiping, alcoholic, megalomaniacal rock god Stacee Jaxx who went above and beyond in perfecting his role.
This movie’s soundtrack features songs and power ballads from Guns N’ Roses, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Journey, Twisted Sister, Pat Benetar, Scorpions, Whitesnake, Poison, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner among other epic bands giving Rock of Ages it’s 80’s jukebox musical foundation.
Mary J. Blige, Cruise, Ale Baldwin, Boneta, Hough and the whole cast of mega stars went above and beyond in selling their characters and performing stunning and accurate vocals that really pulled this movie together. The corny 80’s fashion and authentic dance numbers were the real icing on the cake. If you can sit through two hours of 80’s rock and pop nostalgia and know you will enjoy it, then definitely check this movie out.
It is lightly satirical, a parody at times, that seems to mock our beloved 80’s rock era, while honoring its eccentricities, its tight leopard print pants, big hair, shoulder pads and over the top MTV music videos.
I like to judge a movie not only by how it makes me feel but also by how the audience reacts. This wasn’t an in-your-face-slapstick comedy, yet the whole theater roared with laughter throughout the film. To sum up the experience of Rock of Ages, it’s like watching a string of 80’s music videos mashed into a weak plot, with well-timed laughing points. Some of us laughed because we remember being the ones with those crazy hair-dos and out-of-control fashion sense and some were just laughing because this movie was so well done. It walked the fine line between super over-the-top corny and truly honoring our rock heritage. This movie does play to a specific demographic of ages 30 to 50, those who, with great nostalgia, remember how the 80’s rock and fashion revolution shaped their lives.
As the song goes, just a small town girl, Sherrie Christian played by Julianne Hough, travels to the big city in search of her dreams of becoming a singer, where she meets her city boy, Drew Boley played by Diego Boneta. Together they embark on a musical romance while working at a rock club named The Bourbon Room. Alec Baldwin plays an old rocker named Dennis Dupree struggling to keep his legend of a night club/concert hall open. Russell Brand, as always, steps in as the comic relief while playing the club owner;s assistant named Lonny. Together they work to keep The Bourbon Room afloat while dealing with a vengeful Patricia Whitmore, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, who wishes nothing more then to see The Bourbon Room burned to the ground.
There are points in this movie when the acting, the singing and yes, even the plot, grabs you and holds your attention, much like watching the train wreck we call 80’s fashion. Its painful but you can’t look away! There were other times in this movie when the singing felt like it would go on forever. I noticed that the low points would be immediately succeeded by a very entertaining turn of events, so my attention was not lost for long. There came a point, at about the third Glee style 80’s rock mash-up, where I felt like slapping the director, Adam Shankman. Even too much of a good thing can get boring and I felt Shankman reached that point several times in the film. Luckily, he redeemed himself by bringing in Tom Cruise to play the Satan worshiping, alcoholic, megalomaniacal rock god Stacee Jaxx who went above and beyond in perfecting his role.
This movie’s soundtrack features songs and power ballads from Guns N’ Roses, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Journey, Twisted Sister, Pat Benetar, Scorpions, Whitesnake, Poison, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner among other epic bands giving Rock of Ages it’s 80’s jukebox musical foundation.
Mary J. Blige, Cruise, Ale Baldwin, Boneta, Hough and the whole cast of mega stars went above and beyond in selling their characters and performing stunning and accurate vocals that really pulled this movie together. The corny 80’s fashion and authentic dance numbers were the real icing on the cake. If you can sit through two hours of 80’s rock and pop nostalgia and know you will enjoy it, then definitely check this movie out.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Reminiscence (2021) in Movies
Aug 24, 2021
Needed a better Director - like one of the Nolan boys
Christopher Nolan is one of the greatest Directors of our time usually making films that have an attribute of time in them. His brother, Jonathan Nolan, has had a hand in most of his brother’s terrific works as well as the creative force behind such “trippy” TV series as PERSON OF INTEREST and the recent revival of WESTWORLD. In both of these TV Series, Jonathan Nolan was assisted by his wife, Lisa Joy.
Lisa Joy has written and directed her own “trippy, play with time” film, REMINISCENCE that has quite a few of the hallmarks of a Christopher (or Jonathan) Nolan film - but it also has one very unsettling aspect to it - it plays like a twice over copy of something else.
REMINISCENCE is a classic neo-noir with our hero being smitten by the femme fatale which draws him into her world, where murder, criminal activities and low-lifes run rampant all with a downbeat tone.
This sounds like a terrific premise for a Christopher Nolan film, unfortunately, in the hands of Lisa Joy, it is like watching a local community theater production of a Broadway musical.
The first 1/3 of this film is one long, laborious setup for the tragedy that will unfold and it is told at an uninteresting snail’s pace. Reminiscence picks up a bit in the middle with a pretty good action scene - and plot twist - before squandering this momentum with mediocrity at the end.
Joy’s script - which was on Hollywood’s infamous “blacklist’ of scripts for many, many years (a list of screenplays that are generally praised, but for some reason or another have not been produced), is at the core of the problem. The dialogue is not very interesting and dripping with heavy film noire clichés. She does not follow the Hollywood doctrine of “show, don’t tell”. She TELLS the audience much, much more than is needed and never really gives the audience any credit for figuring things out for themselves.
For example, there is a “dirty cop” that is central to the plot (there always is in this type of film). So, how do the other characters in the film address him? “You’re the dirty cop…”
I’d laugh if I wasn’t so bored.
What DOES work in this film is the acting of Hugh Jackman (as our hero), Rebecca Ferguson (as the femme fatale) and - especially - Thandie Newton as the “Gal Friday” of Jackman’s. Someone needs to give this talented actress a true showcase of her talents.
Someone also needs to give good ol’ Cliff Curtis a vehicle for his talents - he is one of the most misused good performers in Hollywood and he is misused in this film as well.
And…don’t get me started on the special effects. If you are going to make a trippy, sci-fi, futuristic neo-noire thriller, you probably shouldn’t cut the corner on the special effects, but this film does that, amazingly.
But…with a good Director at the helm there is enough “good enough” here (especially in the acting) that you should be able to pull something decent out of it.
But…Joy is making her theatrical film directing debut - exactly the type of director that this film does not need. What this film needed wasn’t a rookie director like Joy, it needed a Nolan - either Jonathan or (preferably) Christopher to make this work. But, one will have to be contented with a copy of a copy.
And that’s just not good enough.
Letter Grade: C+ (the performances of the leads almost salvage things.
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lisa Joy has written and directed her own “trippy, play with time” film, REMINISCENCE that has quite a few of the hallmarks of a Christopher (or Jonathan) Nolan film - but it also has one very unsettling aspect to it - it plays like a twice over copy of something else.
REMINISCENCE is a classic neo-noir with our hero being smitten by the femme fatale which draws him into her world, where murder, criminal activities and low-lifes run rampant all with a downbeat tone.
This sounds like a terrific premise for a Christopher Nolan film, unfortunately, in the hands of Lisa Joy, it is like watching a local community theater production of a Broadway musical.
The first 1/3 of this film is one long, laborious setup for the tragedy that will unfold and it is told at an uninteresting snail’s pace. Reminiscence picks up a bit in the middle with a pretty good action scene - and plot twist - before squandering this momentum with mediocrity at the end.
Joy’s script - which was on Hollywood’s infamous “blacklist’ of scripts for many, many years (a list of screenplays that are generally praised, but for some reason or another have not been produced), is at the core of the problem. The dialogue is not very interesting and dripping with heavy film noire clichés. She does not follow the Hollywood doctrine of “show, don’t tell”. She TELLS the audience much, much more than is needed and never really gives the audience any credit for figuring things out for themselves.
For example, there is a “dirty cop” that is central to the plot (there always is in this type of film). So, how do the other characters in the film address him? “You’re the dirty cop…”
I’d laugh if I wasn’t so bored.
What DOES work in this film is the acting of Hugh Jackman (as our hero), Rebecca Ferguson (as the femme fatale) and - especially - Thandie Newton as the “Gal Friday” of Jackman’s. Someone needs to give this talented actress a true showcase of her talents.
Someone also needs to give good ol’ Cliff Curtis a vehicle for his talents - he is one of the most misused good performers in Hollywood and he is misused in this film as well.
And…don’t get me started on the special effects. If you are going to make a trippy, sci-fi, futuristic neo-noire thriller, you probably shouldn’t cut the corner on the special effects, but this film does that, amazingly.
But…with a good Director at the helm there is enough “good enough” here (especially in the acting) that you should be able to pull something decent out of it.
But…Joy is making her theatrical film directing debut - exactly the type of director that this film does not need. What this film needed wasn’t a rookie director like Joy, it needed a Nolan - either Jonathan or (preferably) Christopher to make this work. But, one will have to be contented with a copy of a copy.
And that’s just not good enough.
Letter Grade: C+ (the performances of the leads almost salvage things.
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Jefferson's Treasure: How Albert Gallatin Saved the New Nation from Debt in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Jefferson’s Treasure, by Gregory May, details, “how Albert Gallatin saved the new nation from debt.” Appointed by President Thomas Jefferson to be his Treasury Secretary, Gallatin continued under President Madison, maintaining that position for twelve years. During his tenure, he abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
So who was this man that undid Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal system, rejecting it along with Madison and Jefferson? Because both Presidents did not understand the financial system, they depended on Gallatin to reform it. Gallatin arrived in America in 1790 from Geneva and rose up to become a trusted advisor of the Republicans. Six years before Jefferson was elected President, Gallatin’s Pennsylvania neighbors rebelled against the tax on whiskey. He supported them in principle but opposed the violence that ensued, burning the local tax collector’s house, robbing the mail, and marching on Pittsburgh.
The play “Hamilton” uses revisionist history. The real Hamilton believed in big government and wanted to continue funding federal deficits. He based his theories on the British who used the money to fund their large military conflicts, believing that the ability to borrow endless amounts of money would allow the new United States to become a great nation. Jefferson and Madison thought Hamilton’s system, straight from the British way, was tainted with tyranny. As May noted, “It made the people pay obnoxious taxes in order to fund interest payments on a mounting federal debt and the costs of an expensive military establishment. It shifted money from ordinary taxpayers to the relatively few rich men who held the government’s bonds. That was just the sort of thing that had led Americans to revolt against Britain in the first place.”
May believes, “The hip-hop immigrant hero of the Broadway musical is a myth. The musical might be a great work of art, but is relies on misconceptions of Hamilton. He was not an immigrant, but a migrant within the British Empire. Also, he was not a man of the people, as Gallatin was, but an elitist.”
While Hamilton committed to paying only the interest on the government’s debt, Gallatin committed the government to repaying fixed amounts of the principal each year. He also insisted that the government should never spend more than it earned except in times of war. By slashing federal expenses, Gallatin was able to get rid of the tax on whiskey and abolish the entire internal revenue service.
The Republicans, an agrarian society, distrusted these elitists where two-thirds of the government debt belonged to a few hundred very wealthy men residing mainly in Philadelphia, New York, and other mercantile cities. They saw Hamilton’s plan of collecting taxes from ordinary citizens as a way for a few rich men to become even wealthier. Implementing these excise taxes required government officials to inspect, quantify, and mark the items subject to tax.
The Hamilton system benefited the wealthy debt holders and spectators at the expense of the average taxpayer who had to pay the interest. The government would borrow more than the people could pay. Hamilton tried to hide how much money the government was actually spending and spiraled the debt higher and higher.
This was an important part of the British tax base, and “I wanted to show how unpopular it was. Hamilton and company were resented because they created a tax collection network that affected the lives of ordinary citizens. The excise tax is a form of internal taxation, while tariffs are a form of external taxation that fell on the well to do. Remember mostly the well to do bought imports. The Republicans once they came to power relied on import duties rather than excise taxes.”
May further explained, “When Jefferson and his administration came to power it was Gallatin who got rid of Hamilton’s deficit finance system and cut taxes. By the time he has left office he has repaid half the federal debt and set up a program for repaying the rest.”
Anyone who wants to understand the early economic systems of the Founding Fathers will enjoy this book. It shows how Gallatin, by killing Hamilton’s financial system, abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
So who was this man that undid Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal system, rejecting it along with Madison and Jefferson? Because both Presidents did not understand the financial system, they depended on Gallatin to reform it. Gallatin arrived in America in 1790 from Geneva and rose up to become a trusted advisor of the Republicans. Six years before Jefferson was elected President, Gallatin’s Pennsylvania neighbors rebelled against the tax on whiskey. He supported them in principle but opposed the violence that ensued, burning the local tax collector’s house, robbing the mail, and marching on Pittsburgh.
The play “Hamilton” uses revisionist history. The real Hamilton believed in big government and wanted to continue funding federal deficits. He based his theories on the British who used the money to fund their large military conflicts, believing that the ability to borrow endless amounts of money would allow the new United States to become a great nation. Jefferson and Madison thought Hamilton’s system, straight from the British way, was tainted with tyranny. As May noted, “It made the people pay obnoxious taxes in order to fund interest payments on a mounting federal debt and the costs of an expensive military establishment. It shifted money from ordinary taxpayers to the relatively few rich men who held the government’s bonds. That was just the sort of thing that had led Americans to revolt against Britain in the first place.”
May believes, “The hip-hop immigrant hero of the Broadway musical is a myth. The musical might be a great work of art, but is relies on misconceptions of Hamilton. He was not an immigrant, but a migrant within the British Empire. Also, he was not a man of the people, as Gallatin was, but an elitist.”
While Hamilton committed to paying only the interest on the government’s debt, Gallatin committed the government to repaying fixed amounts of the principal each year. He also insisted that the government should never spend more than it earned except in times of war. By slashing federal expenses, Gallatin was able to get rid of the tax on whiskey and abolish the entire internal revenue service.
The Republicans, an agrarian society, distrusted these elitists where two-thirds of the government debt belonged to a few hundred very wealthy men residing mainly in Philadelphia, New York, and other mercantile cities. They saw Hamilton’s plan of collecting taxes from ordinary citizens as a way for a few rich men to become even wealthier. Implementing these excise taxes required government officials to inspect, quantify, and mark the items subject to tax.
The Hamilton system benefited the wealthy debt holders and spectators at the expense of the average taxpayer who had to pay the interest. The government would borrow more than the people could pay. Hamilton tried to hide how much money the government was actually spending and spiraled the debt higher and higher.
This was an important part of the British tax base, and “I wanted to show how unpopular it was. Hamilton and company were resented because they created a tax collection network that affected the lives of ordinary citizens. The excise tax is a form of internal taxation, while tariffs are a form of external taxation that fell on the well to do. Remember mostly the well to do bought imports. The Republicans once they came to power relied on import duties rather than excise taxes.”
May further explained, “When Jefferson and his administration came to power it was Gallatin who got rid of Hamilton’s deficit finance system and cut taxes. By the time he has left office he has repaid half the federal debt and set up a program for repaying the rest.”
Anyone who wants to understand the early economic systems of the Founding Fathers will enjoy this book. It shows how Gallatin, by killing Hamilton’s financial system, abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated A Haunting In Cawdor (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The psychological thriller is another genre that seems to have taken a ‘back seat’ to the big budget action films, horror, and comedies in recent years. Or if there were any good psychological thrillers to hit the theater or the internet I either didn’t hear about them or they didn’t really make much of an impact. Personally when I think of that genre the first name to come to mind is Alfred Hitchcook. I’m sure if I sat down and thought about it, I could think of a movie that falls into that category I’ve seen since then but I don’t have that kind of time. What I do have time for is to tell you about a movie that is certainly a step in the right direction.
Uncork’ed Entertainment’s ‘A Haunting In Cawdor’ available March 11th, is written and directed by Phil Wurtzel and revisits this genre of film with an impressive cast in attempt to breathe new life into psychological terror. Vivian Miller (Shelby Young of American Horror Story) is a young troubled woman who is serving out her jail sentence along with a group of convicts with a work release program in a small Midwestern town. Specifically, at the Cawdor Barn Theater. A rundown seasonal summer run by Lawrence O’Neil (Cary Elwes of A Princess Bride and The X-Files) a failed Broadway director who has taken it upon himself to stage amateur productions with young parolees.
It doesn’t take long once the movie starts for the quote ‘madness’ to begin. The moment Vivian sets foot in town, she starts to hallucinate. A local boy Roddy (Michael Welch of The Twilight Saga, Z Nation, Scandal) takes an immediate interest in her but disappears shortly thereafter. Once the group arrives at the theater they are told that along with helping with the theater’s upkeep part of the group’s probation is to put on a stage production of William Shakespeare’s ‘MacBeth’ which has not been performed at the theater in 15 years. While the everyone is preparing to upgrade the theater and rehearse for the play Vivian finds an old VHS cassette with a recording of the theater’s last performance of ‘MacBeth’. As it turns out the young girl that was cast in the lead for that performance Jeanette (Alexandria Deberry), the same role Vivian has been cast in, was found dead not long after and upon viewing the tape unintentionally releases an evil force that has some sort of connection to Lawrence who has begun to act superstitiously. At first Vivian tries to write these instances off as hallucinations brought about by her own personal demons and a lack of medication which her psychiatrist Dr. Lazarus (Peter Floch) readily agrees with. Things take an even more otherworldly turn though when the spirit of the dead girl begins to communicate with Vivian through the tape and the mystery surrounding her death and that of her mysterious admirer Roddy and his connection to Lawrence and the play all converge just days before the play.
This film is definitely the kind of thing you’d want to watch in the dark and preferably on a stormy night as well. You had a great cast composed of veterans and up-and-comers combined with a basic premise. The movie did seem to lack something though. There was very little regarding the interpersonal relationships between the characters in the movie and how they got along with one another. Mostly just a few scenes of the group presumably drinking alcohol which they were not supposed to have to begin with. There was also the fact that you learn Vivian’s crime but not why she did it and they continually poke at the subject in the brief flashbacks. There were also the ending of the film which, after the grand finale, makes no sense whatsoever. There’s no resolution and not in the sense that it was written that way purposely. There were a few directions the movie could’ve explored in that hour and 40 minutes but didn’t which would added more to the film. It could almost be compared to having a bunch of people run every path in a maze except the one path that would lead you out of it.
The one thing that saved the film was the cast and their performances. I can give this film 2 1/2 stars because of that. It’s worth watching once for that aspect alone.
Uncork’ed Entertainment’s ‘A Haunting In Cawdor’ available March 11th, is written and directed by Phil Wurtzel and revisits this genre of film with an impressive cast in attempt to breathe new life into psychological terror. Vivian Miller (Shelby Young of American Horror Story) is a young troubled woman who is serving out her jail sentence along with a group of convicts with a work release program in a small Midwestern town. Specifically, at the Cawdor Barn Theater. A rundown seasonal summer run by Lawrence O’Neil (Cary Elwes of A Princess Bride and The X-Files) a failed Broadway director who has taken it upon himself to stage amateur productions with young parolees.
It doesn’t take long once the movie starts for the quote ‘madness’ to begin. The moment Vivian sets foot in town, she starts to hallucinate. A local boy Roddy (Michael Welch of The Twilight Saga, Z Nation, Scandal) takes an immediate interest in her but disappears shortly thereafter. Once the group arrives at the theater they are told that along with helping with the theater’s upkeep part of the group’s probation is to put on a stage production of William Shakespeare’s ‘MacBeth’ which has not been performed at the theater in 15 years. While the everyone is preparing to upgrade the theater and rehearse for the play Vivian finds an old VHS cassette with a recording of the theater’s last performance of ‘MacBeth’. As it turns out the young girl that was cast in the lead for that performance Jeanette (Alexandria Deberry), the same role Vivian has been cast in, was found dead not long after and upon viewing the tape unintentionally releases an evil force that has some sort of connection to Lawrence who has begun to act superstitiously. At first Vivian tries to write these instances off as hallucinations brought about by her own personal demons and a lack of medication which her psychiatrist Dr. Lazarus (Peter Floch) readily agrees with. Things take an even more otherworldly turn though when the spirit of the dead girl begins to communicate with Vivian through the tape and the mystery surrounding her death and that of her mysterious admirer Roddy and his connection to Lawrence and the play all converge just days before the play.
This film is definitely the kind of thing you’d want to watch in the dark and preferably on a stormy night as well. You had a great cast composed of veterans and up-and-comers combined with a basic premise. The movie did seem to lack something though. There was very little regarding the interpersonal relationships between the characters in the movie and how they got along with one another. Mostly just a few scenes of the group presumably drinking alcohol which they were not supposed to have to begin with. There was also the fact that you learn Vivian’s crime but not why she did it and they continually poke at the subject in the brief flashbacks. There were also the ending of the film which, after the grand finale, makes no sense whatsoever. There’s no resolution and not in the sense that it was written that way purposely. There were a few directions the movie could’ve explored in that hour and 40 minutes but didn’t which would added more to the film. It could almost be compared to having a bunch of people run every path in a maze except the one path that would lead you out of it.
The one thing that saved the film was the cast and their performances. I can give this film 2 1/2 stars because of that. It’s worth watching once for that aspect alone.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
It seems recently that the Disney vault has exploded with the release of several of their classic animated films being remade. Unfortunately, the classics that have inspired these remakes have been redone with mixed results. The original The Lion King was released back in 1994 and it’s hard to believe that I was a junior in college when I saw it. Since that time, we’ve seen various iterations of the classic story, a few direct to VCR sequels and the awe-inspiring Broadway stage production (which if you are a serious fan of the movie I encourage you to see). It seems odd to discuss the plot of a movie that I’m certain everyone reading this has seen at least once (or a dozen times over). To the uninformed however, The Lion King is about a young cub named Simba (JD McCrary as the young voice and Donald Glover as the adult) who suffers the tragic loss of his father Mufasa (James Earl Jones) at the paws of his evil uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Scar convinces Simba that he is responsible for his father’s death and that he must leave the pride and never return. With the help of his faithful friends Timon (Billy Eichner), the lovable warthog Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), the ever wise Zazu (John Oliver) and his budding queen Nala (Beyoncé’) he learns that true courage comes from within and realizes he must face Scar if he is ever to bring peace back to the Pride Lands.
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
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)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The most anticipated film of the summer, Spider-Man 3 has arrived to the delight of moviegoers the world over. It has been roughly a little more than a year since Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire), defeated Dr. Octopus and saved the city from certain doom.
During this time, Spider-man has become New York City’s celebrated hero, and his day to day alter ego, Peter Parker, delights in his fame, while dating the love of his life, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst).
As the film opens, Peter has decided to ask Mary Jane to be his wife, and plans to surprise her with a ring during dinner at a fancy restaurant. Mary Jane is starring in a Broadway play, and despite harsh reviews, she is living her dream and madly in love with Peter.
Things take an unexpected twist for Peter when he is attacked one night by his best friend Harry (James Franco), who blames him for the death of his father at the conclusion of the first film. Enhanced by his father’s Goblin serum, Harry is a deadly adversary for Peter who is able to fend off the attack eventually, and put into motion a series of events that will forever change his life.
When a career criminal named Flint Marko (Thomas Hayden Church), is accidentally caught in an experiment while fleeing the authorities, he becomes a living mass of sand, which enables him to start a string of robberies as “The Sandman”, and provides Spider-man with his most unusual opponent yet.
As if this was not enough, Peter must contend with a new hotshot photographer named Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), who is after a staff position at the Daily Bugle. The fact that Peter has more seniority at the paper is of little interest to Eddie, and he will stop at nothing to get the better of Peter.
At this point one would think that Peter has more than enough on his plate, but fate is about to drop an unexpected player into his life, a space based symbiote that bonds
with Peter’s costume and creates a dark black look for Spider-Man as well as an increase in his powers.
Peter becomes obsessed with his new powers, and there is a dramatic change in his persona, which does not sit well with Mary Jane. When new information is given to Peter about the death of his Uncle Ben, Peter is more than willing to use his new found abilities to exact the revenge that he craves.
Peter also has another area of interest as Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), the daughter of the local Chief of Police has caught his eye, much to the chagrin of both Mary Jane and Gwen’s current boyfriend Eddie Brock.
This tangled web of characters soon forces Peter to take stock of his life and the choices he makes, in order to determine what truly matters to him, the love and respect of his friends, or giving into his darker side and pursing power and unending praise and adulation.
The film starts out well, and the early conflict between Peter and Harry is a brilliantly staged spectacle of sight, sound, and motion. There are also some great moments between the lead characters and Church, Howard and Grace do well with their characters, yet something about Spider-Man 3 did not click for me the way the previous two films in the series have.
Having the luxury of time from the press screener to the opening, I was able to look back at the film the past week and a half to try to determine what did not work for me, and I kept coming back to the same conclusions.
First, the film wants very much to be much darker and edgier than the other films, yet just when you think you are going to see Peter fully cross the line, the film pulls back into campy mode, and we are given scenes of Peter hamming it up as a ladies’ man, and I kid you not, doing an impromptu dance number.
While this works for comedic effect, I am supposed to believe that the darker side of Peter’s soul is being exposed, and I had a hard time thinking that his inner demons include “Saturday Night Fever” style strut down the sidewalk, and a floor show.
The second thing that bothered me was the villains, as aside from Harry as the New Goblin, both the Sandman and Venom were sadly lacking. Neither The Sandman nor Venom had over the top plots to rule the world, kill or enslave the masses, or endanger huge parts of the city as was the case with the original Green Goblin and Dr Octopus.
Rather we have one who is content to steal to fund a noble cause, and wishes only to complete this cause and have Spider-Man out of his way. The second simply wants revenge for being slighted, and does not elude the menace nor danger that the character warrants.
effects wise the film is solid and there are some great moments in the film, but to many times I thought I had seen the same sand effects years early in the “Mummy” series which lead to many cases of “been there, seen that” for me. With a budget that many claim to be the most expensive film ever made when based on current dollar values, I had expected more from the film, especially given the talented and dynamic cast, and the ample backing of the studio.
Director and series Guru Sam Raimi seems to be coasting here as one has to wonder if he used up many of his great ideas in the last two films, and was trying so hard not to repeat himself, that he lost that magic spark that made the last two films such classics.
As it stands, “Spider-Man 3” is a good film, but you can’t help but feel it could have been a better one.
During this time, Spider-man has become New York City’s celebrated hero, and his day to day alter ego, Peter Parker, delights in his fame, while dating the love of his life, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst).
As the film opens, Peter has decided to ask Mary Jane to be his wife, and plans to surprise her with a ring during dinner at a fancy restaurant. Mary Jane is starring in a Broadway play, and despite harsh reviews, she is living her dream and madly in love with Peter.
Things take an unexpected twist for Peter when he is attacked one night by his best friend Harry (James Franco), who blames him for the death of his father at the conclusion of the first film. Enhanced by his father’s Goblin serum, Harry is a deadly adversary for Peter who is able to fend off the attack eventually, and put into motion a series of events that will forever change his life.
When a career criminal named Flint Marko (Thomas Hayden Church), is accidentally caught in an experiment while fleeing the authorities, he becomes a living mass of sand, which enables him to start a string of robberies as “The Sandman”, and provides Spider-man with his most unusual opponent yet.
As if this was not enough, Peter must contend with a new hotshot photographer named Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), who is after a staff position at the Daily Bugle. The fact that Peter has more seniority at the paper is of little interest to Eddie, and he will stop at nothing to get the better of Peter.
At this point one would think that Peter has more than enough on his plate, but fate is about to drop an unexpected player into his life, a space based symbiote that bonds
with Peter’s costume and creates a dark black look for Spider-Man as well as an increase in his powers.
Peter becomes obsessed with his new powers, and there is a dramatic change in his persona, which does not sit well with Mary Jane. When new information is given to Peter about the death of his Uncle Ben, Peter is more than willing to use his new found abilities to exact the revenge that he craves.
Peter also has another area of interest as Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), the daughter of the local Chief of Police has caught his eye, much to the chagrin of both Mary Jane and Gwen’s current boyfriend Eddie Brock.
This tangled web of characters soon forces Peter to take stock of his life and the choices he makes, in order to determine what truly matters to him, the love and respect of his friends, or giving into his darker side and pursing power and unending praise and adulation.
The film starts out well, and the early conflict between Peter and Harry is a brilliantly staged spectacle of sight, sound, and motion. There are also some great moments between the lead characters and Church, Howard and Grace do well with their characters, yet something about Spider-Man 3 did not click for me the way the previous two films in the series have.
Having the luxury of time from the press screener to the opening, I was able to look back at the film the past week and a half to try to determine what did not work for me, and I kept coming back to the same conclusions.
First, the film wants very much to be much darker and edgier than the other films, yet just when you think you are going to see Peter fully cross the line, the film pulls back into campy mode, and we are given scenes of Peter hamming it up as a ladies’ man, and I kid you not, doing an impromptu dance number.
While this works for comedic effect, I am supposed to believe that the darker side of Peter’s soul is being exposed, and I had a hard time thinking that his inner demons include “Saturday Night Fever” style strut down the sidewalk, and a floor show.
The second thing that bothered me was the villains, as aside from Harry as the New Goblin, both the Sandman and Venom were sadly lacking. Neither The Sandman nor Venom had over the top plots to rule the world, kill or enslave the masses, or endanger huge parts of the city as was the case with the original Green Goblin and Dr Octopus.
Rather we have one who is content to steal to fund a noble cause, and wishes only to complete this cause and have Spider-Man out of his way. The second simply wants revenge for being slighted, and does not elude the menace nor danger that the character warrants.
effects wise the film is solid and there are some great moments in the film, but to many times I thought I had seen the same sand effects years early in the “Mummy” series which lead to many cases of “been there, seen that” for me. With a budget that many claim to be the most expensive film ever made when based on current dollar values, I had expected more from the film, especially given the talented and dynamic cast, and the ample backing of the studio.
Director and series Guru Sam Raimi seems to be coasting here as one has to wonder if he used up many of his great ideas in the last two films, and was trying so hard not to repeat himself, that he lost that magic spark that made the last two films such classics.
As it stands, “Spider-Man 3” is a good film, but you can’t help but feel it could have been a better one.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Les Misérables (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Words cannot express how amazing this movie is. For those of you who have shouldered through the modern-day musical revival; suffering through the questionable singing talents of many stars as “Phantom of the Opera,” “Chicago,” “Moulin Rouge,” “Sweeny Todd,” and that abysmal rendition of “Nine” – I can assure you, that “Les Mis” will change that perception. For once, the casting crew took the time to select a cast capable of the repertoire’s vocal demands (and Les Mis is very vocally demanding – as most operatic pieces are). It’s apparent that each singer was heavily vocally coached and trained, some faring more so than others. While this is no replacement for raw talent, I can assure you that the cast was downright fantastic.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.