Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Cars (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The technical wizards at Pixar are back with a new feature film which continues their domination of the animated film genre.
With the huge success of their films The Incredibles as well as Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc. and the Toy Story films, it would be easy to think that the studio might be at a creative crossroads. When recent news around the industry involved the end of their deal with Disney and subsequent new deal with the company after a period of free agency as well as delays on their new project, some began to wonder what audiences would see if their next outing.
Thankfully Cars continues the amazing run of success for the studio and sets the bar even higher for animated films to follow.
The film follows the exploits of rookie racing car Lightning MC Queen (Owen Wilson), who is the hotshot rookie attempting to be the first rookie in history to win the Piston Cup title.
As Lightening dreams of winning the prize and in doing so, a hefty sponsorship with the big oil company, he decides to ignore the advice of his crew which causes him to end up in a three way tie for the title.
In order to resolve the tie a special race is to be held a week later in California between the three winners. En route, Lightning ignores the advice of his driver Mack (John Ratzenberger), and in a series of mishaps ends up alone in the desolate
town of Radiator Springs. As if this was not enough trouble for Lightning, he is forced by the local judge Doc Hudson (Paul Newman), to perform community service to complete the damage he caused to the road upon his arrival.
Faced with the prospect of losing time needed to get to and prepare for the race, the selfish Lightning does his best to alienate the local townsfolk including the local tow truck Tom Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), who like all the locals do their best to befriend him.
Along the way, Lightning learns the values of friendship, teamwork and community as he attempts to find the true meaning of the term “Winner”.
Graphically the film is amazing as the amount of CGI rendering that went into the film is said to be so extensive, it literally taxed the computers at Pixar to their limits. That is clear as the detail level and complexity of the film is staggering. You fully believe that this world populated entirely by machines exists.
There is a lot of humor in the film as well and more than enough nods that will appeal to older viewers yet may be over the heads of younger viewers.
If I had to find fault in the film, it would be that with a running time of slightly over two hours, it does tend to drag in a few places. My nephew and his friend became restless about 50 minutes into the film which made me think that the running time may be to long for some younger children to sit through and that the film might have been better served by trimming about 30 minutes as there were segments that while visually appealing, did not really need to be there.
That being said, Cars is a true delight and proof that once again, Pixar is the undisputed champion of animated films.
With the huge success of their films The Incredibles as well as Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc. and the Toy Story films, it would be easy to think that the studio might be at a creative crossroads. When recent news around the industry involved the end of their deal with Disney and subsequent new deal with the company after a period of free agency as well as delays on their new project, some began to wonder what audiences would see if their next outing.
Thankfully Cars continues the amazing run of success for the studio and sets the bar even higher for animated films to follow.
The film follows the exploits of rookie racing car Lightning MC Queen (Owen Wilson), who is the hotshot rookie attempting to be the first rookie in history to win the Piston Cup title.
As Lightening dreams of winning the prize and in doing so, a hefty sponsorship with the big oil company, he decides to ignore the advice of his crew which causes him to end up in a three way tie for the title.
In order to resolve the tie a special race is to be held a week later in California between the three winners. En route, Lightning ignores the advice of his driver Mack (John Ratzenberger), and in a series of mishaps ends up alone in the desolate
town of Radiator Springs. As if this was not enough trouble for Lightning, he is forced by the local judge Doc Hudson (Paul Newman), to perform community service to complete the damage he caused to the road upon his arrival.
Faced with the prospect of losing time needed to get to and prepare for the race, the selfish Lightning does his best to alienate the local townsfolk including the local tow truck Tom Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), who like all the locals do their best to befriend him.
Along the way, Lightning learns the values of friendship, teamwork and community as he attempts to find the true meaning of the term “Winner”.
Graphically the film is amazing as the amount of CGI rendering that went into the film is said to be so extensive, it literally taxed the computers at Pixar to their limits. That is clear as the detail level and complexity of the film is staggering. You fully believe that this world populated entirely by machines exists.
There is a lot of humor in the film as well and more than enough nods that will appeal to older viewers yet may be over the heads of younger viewers.
If I had to find fault in the film, it would be that with a running time of slightly over two hours, it does tend to drag in a few places. My nephew and his friend became restless about 50 minutes into the film which made me think that the running time may be to long for some younger children to sit through and that the film might have been better served by trimming about 30 minutes as there were segments that while visually appealing, did not really need to be there.
That being said, Cars is a true delight and proof that once again, Pixar is the undisputed champion of animated films.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Wild Hogs (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
When four middle aged men all face a collection of issues at the same time, some people might think this premise is a setup for an emotional drama that will explore aging from a men’s point of view.
However in the new film Wild Hogs, the topic is skewered with hysterical results thanks to a great cast and some very funny moments.
When dentist Doug (Tim Allen), worries he has lost his edge and can no longer connect with his past glory, he convinces the three members of his local biking club to join him on a cross country trip from Ohio to California.
Along for the ride are Woody (John Travolta), who has learned he is broke and is getting divorced from his supermodel wife, Shy and socially awkward computer programmer Dudley (William H. Macy), and henpecked plumber Bobby (Martin Lawrence), who after taking a year off to work on a project that has not come to fruition, now finds himself facing the same plumbing issues that made him flee in the first place.
None of the men are happy with their place in life and are in need of a spark to lift them from their middle aged funk. The group sets off and soon finds one misfortune after another as well as some very awkward moments with law enforcement, male bonding, and an over eager family they meet along the way.
Despite this, this trip is going well until the group decides to stop for a drink at a local biker bar. Once in the bar, the leader of the Del Fuegos, Jack (Ray Liotta) decides to make life hard for the guys as he cannot stand suburbanites passing themselves off as bikers. He decides to take one of their bikes and not allow the group to venture further West down the highway in front of the bar.
Resigned to their fate, the guys are ready to head back, when Woody decides to fix the situation and sneaks back to recover Dudley’s bike and play a trick on the Del Fuegos. Everything goes according to plan until the bar explodes from the prank, and the guys end up running from the bikers who are bent on revenge.
The only issue is that Woody has not told the other three what he did, and has his friends convinced that he had a conversation with the bikers where they came to an understanding. Undaunted, the guys stop at a local New Mexico town for gas and learn that they must wait until Monday for the gas station to reopen.
Of course, Woody is freaking out as he knows the bikers will be out looking for them, and matters are further compounded when Dudley falls for a local restaurant owner (Marissa Tomei), and is eager to hang around for a few more days.
What follows is a funny set of circumstances as the guys take part in the local community while they wait for gas, which ultimately leads up to a final confrontation with the Del Fuegos.
Wild Hogs, is one of the funnier comedies I have seen in a while. I went in not expecting much, and I must say I was very surprised. The four leads work well with one another, and there are some very funny segments in the film, which I will not spoil for you, but suffice it to say the audience was in hysterics.
It is rare to find a comedy that not only makes you laugh but makes you leave the theater with a smile, and this film delivers.
However in the new film Wild Hogs, the topic is skewered with hysterical results thanks to a great cast and some very funny moments.
When dentist Doug (Tim Allen), worries he has lost his edge and can no longer connect with his past glory, he convinces the three members of his local biking club to join him on a cross country trip from Ohio to California.
Along for the ride are Woody (John Travolta), who has learned he is broke and is getting divorced from his supermodel wife, Shy and socially awkward computer programmer Dudley (William H. Macy), and henpecked plumber Bobby (Martin Lawrence), who after taking a year off to work on a project that has not come to fruition, now finds himself facing the same plumbing issues that made him flee in the first place.
None of the men are happy with their place in life and are in need of a spark to lift them from their middle aged funk. The group sets off and soon finds one misfortune after another as well as some very awkward moments with law enforcement, male bonding, and an over eager family they meet along the way.
Despite this, this trip is going well until the group decides to stop for a drink at a local biker bar. Once in the bar, the leader of the Del Fuegos, Jack (Ray Liotta) decides to make life hard for the guys as he cannot stand suburbanites passing themselves off as bikers. He decides to take one of their bikes and not allow the group to venture further West down the highway in front of the bar.
Resigned to their fate, the guys are ready to head back, when Woody decides to fix the situation and sneaks back to recover Dudley’s bike and play a trick on the Del Fuegos. Everything goes according to plan until the bar explodes from the prank, and the guys end up running from the bikers who are bent on revenge.
The only issue is that Woody has not told the other three what he did, and has his friends convinced that he had a conversation with the bikers where they came to an understanding. Undaunted, the guys stop at a local New Mexico town for gas and learn that they must wait until Monday for the gas station to reopen.
Of course, Woody is freaking out as he knows the bikers will be out looking for them, and matters are further compounded when Dudley falls for a local restaurant owner (Marissa Tomei), and is eager to hang around for a few more days.
What follows is a funny set of circumstances as the guys take part in the local community while they wait for gas, which ultimately leads up to a final confrontation with the Del Fuegos.
Wild Hogs, is one of the funnier comedies I have seen in a while. I went in not expecting much, and I must say I was very surprised. The four leads work well with one another, and there are some very funny segments in the film, which I will not spoil for you, but suffice it to say the audience was in hysterics.
It is rare to find a comedy that not only makes you laugh but makes you leave the theater with a smile, and this film delivers.
After the death of her husband, Jocelyn "Jo" must return home with her ten-year-old daughter, Ruby. His death has left her in financial trouble, and she has no choice but to head back to Lake Hall, the aristocratic home she shared with her parents when growing up. It's a far cry from California where she lived with Chris and Ruby, escaping a stifling childhood with her mother. Jo's happiest childhood memories involve her nanny, Hannah, but Hannah disappeared suddenly one summer when Jo was seven. Her mother blamed Jo, and the two never repaired their relationship. Back now, thirty years later, Jo must deal with her mother and their fractured relationship. And when she and Ruby find a skull in the lake behind the house, she begins to wonder exactly what happened to Hannah. Jo isn't sure of anything anymore, or who she can trust, even her own memories.
"I'll never be able to change this place, but if we stay here long enough, I'm afraid it will change my daughter and me."
I've loved Gilly Macmillan and her books since I won one of them in a Librarything giveaway a few years ago. She's an excellent writer, and I quite enjoy how different each book is from the next. This one was very different and quite unexpected. It's told from a variety of alternating viewpoints--the primary ones being Jocelyn and her mother, Virginia, but we even get a local policeman and a mysterious woman dating back to the 1970s. I liked the way Macmillan wove all of of these perspectives together. At first, it seemed really easy to trust everyone, and then quickly, you realize that you can't be sure if you can believe either Jo or her mother.
I don't want to go too far or reveal too much, because it's probably better to let most of the plot reveal itself organically, but it's definitely easy to say that much of the book is a little befuddling (in a good way). I found myself drawn to Ruby, the young girl, and oddly, Virginia, despite her history as a pretty terrible parent. Jo frustrated me, with her somewhat naive nature. She would trust some things at face value, yet not others, and I wanted to shake her at points.
There are definitely some convoluted plot points in this one--there's quite a saga with the Holt legacy. I didn't really question it while I was reading, but after, I find myself wondering if it was all necessary. Still, I loved reading about the slightly faded grandeur of Lake Hall--it's just not something you get in America, and it's fun to picture when you read these type of novels. Macmillan does an excellent job of portraying her characters and the setting.
I definitely was caught up in the plot. I thought I had it figured out for a while, then I realized I didn't, and then the ending was a little crazy. I'm still not a 100% sure about it, but I appreciate Macmillan for embracing it. Overall, I enjoyed the varying viewpoints and the slightly fusty, aristocratic setting. I was interested in the characters and wondering what happened with Hannah. A few things seemed a little far-fetched, hence my 3.5-star rating, but still a good read.
"I'll never be able to change this place, but if we stay here long enough, I'm afraid it will change my daughter and me."
I've loved Gilly Macmillan and her books since I won one of them in a Librarything giveaway a few years ago. She's an excellent writer, and I quite enjoy how different each book is from the next. This one was very different and quite unexpected. It's told from a variety of alternating viewpoints--the primary ones being Jocelyn and her mother, Virginia, but we even get a local policeman and a mysterious woman dating back to the 1970s. I liked the way Macmillan wove all of of these perspectives together. At first, it seemed really easy to trust everyone, and then quickly, you realize that you can't be sure if you can believe either Jo or her mother.
I don't want to go too far or reveal too much, because it's probably better to let most of the plot reveal itself organically, but it's definitely easy to say that much of the book is a little befuddling (in a good way). I found myself drawn to Ruby, the young girl, and oddly, Virginia, despite her history as a pretty terrible parent. Jo frustrated me, with her somewhat naive nature. She would trust some things at face value, yet not others, and I wanted to shake her at points.
There are definitely some convoluted plot points in this one--there's quite a saga with the Holt legacy. I didn't really question it while I was reading, but after, I find myself wondering if it was all necessary. Still, I loved reading about the slightly faded grandeur of Lake Hall--it's just not something you get in America, and it's fun to picture when you read these type of novels. Macmillan does an excellent job of portraying her characters and the setting.
I definitely was caught up in the plot. I thought I had it figured out for a while, then I realized I didn't, and then the ending was a little crazy. I'm still not a 100% sure about it, but I appreciate Macmillan for embracing it. Overall, I enjoyed the varying viewpoints and the slightly fusty, aristocratic setting. I was interested in the characters and wondering what happened with Hannah. A few things seemed a little far-fetched, hence my 3.5-star rating, but still a good read.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated S. Darko: A Donnie Darko Tale (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Samantha Darko, or Sam as she goes by, just wants to feel like a normal person. Back where she's from, Virginia, she feels like everyone knows everything about her yet that she's invisible at the same time. She'd change places with somebody if she could. Somehow start all over. Nothing has been the same for her since her brother, Donnie, died seven years ago and she is consumed with the same outlandish visions Donnie had. She decides to go on a road trip with her friend, Corey, to California in hopes of working for Corey's dad. Their car breaks down along the way and they wind up in a small town called Conejo Springs. This is where the world will end in four days, seventeen hours, twenty six minutes, and thirty one seconds.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
s. Darko wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but that still isn't saying much. I love Donnie Darko as it seems to be a film that gets better with each viewing. When news that a sequel to the film was being made, the question that plagued me and every other person who was a fan of the first film was, "Why?" Did the original really leave much room for a sequel? Not in my eyes. The sequel does little to add to the story established in the first film. It pretty much treads the same ground. The world is going to end again. An element that is different in the film is that more than one person is having the visions this time around. While it makes sense that Sam is having these visions, it doesn't really add up why these other people are having them as well. The movie does a lot of back tracking. A lot of things are explained only to rewind and have it play out differently, which makes full use of the time travel element of the film but kind of leaves the viewer wondering if the film was nothing more than a waste of time once the ending rolls around. The film just seems to recycle most of the ingredients of the first film (time travel, Frank the Bunny...even though he's not Frank this time around, religion playing a roll in the film, black holes, etc) and is unable to establish itself as a decent sequel, let alone its own film.
The scene in Donnie Darko that has "Head Over Heels" by Tears For Fears playing in the background while we see Donnie arrive at school and the "Mad World" scene are really the first scenes that come to mind when I think of the original film. The soundtrack played a pivotal role in the film. In s. Darko, there isn't really a scene like that and the soundtrack is forgettable, which really only hurt the film in the long run.
s. Darko walks a thin line between paying homage to the original film and complete bastardization. Its plot tries to string the viewer along this intelligent and thought provoking story, but executes doing so in clumsy fashion. It resembles a circus seal waiting for its reward after playing that ensemble with its nose on the horns currently residing in front of it. It'll really only be accessible to people who were fans of the first film, which is ironic since the film will probably just wind up irritating those fans. If you can ignore the first film entirely and have no expectations for this, then you may find yourself with a direct to video release that is...pretty much just that.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Traffik (2018) in Movies
Nov 23, 2019
Verdict: Shock Filled Thriller
Story: Traffik starts when the ambitious reporter Brea (Patton) loses her big story and potential her job right on the eve of her birthday, her boyfriend John (Epps) wants to surprise her and with his friend Darren (Alonso) he gets a romantic weekend planned.
Heading up to the mountain location the couple find themselves in a gas station where confrontation is quick to find them with help stranger Red (Goss) along with gangs, showing a potential large group of different enemies. The romantic weekend takes a turn, first with the appearance of Darren and his girlfriend Malia (Sanchez), but again by a deadly gang of human traffickers led by Red, who will kill to keep their secret.
Thoughts on Traffik
Characters – Brea is an ambitious reporter always taking her time researching a story before throwing it to her editor, this has seen her get herself into trouble, losing stories and potentially her job. In her personal life it is her birthday celebrating among friends with a romantic getaway being part of it. This getaway will give her the biggest story of her career, when she finds herself targeted by human traffickers who want her in their collection. John is the boyfriend that is getting nervous about the getaway as he is about to propose to Brea, he gets hooked up by the friend that will give them the location and will need to help Brea fight back against the people after them. Red is the leader of the human traffickers, he can charm, but he will show his deadly side if anybody gets in his way.
Performances – Paula Patton is the star of the show here, she gives us a strong performance that shows us just how determined she is to survive. Omar Epps, Luke Goss and the rest of the cast all do a great job letting Paula shine through in this film.
Story – The story here follows a couple on a romantic getaway that get targeted by human traffickers who want to keep their secret safe. This is a story that is designed the highlight the horrific crimes of human trafficking, not just in America, but worldwide. Away from the message behind everything, we do see the mix of a home invasion, chase and fightback elements of story telling putting a firm light on the idea that women will fight back, in this case Brea. The way everything unfolds is mostly predictable which is fine, nothing really hits the intensity levels wanted from the film.
Action/Crime – The action is a mix of chases and fight between victim and captures, they are quick instead of being over the top. The crime side of the film does show us just how easily this operation can happen to the victims and how organised it can be run.
Settings – The film is set in the mountain range outside California where the people can pick and choose who they take.
Scene of the Movie – Escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – One of the main twists is too predictable.
Final Thoughts – This is a generic action thriller that does highlight an important message of the horrors of the human trafficking world that leaves Paula Patton to shine.
Overall: Important, but Generic.
Story: Traffik starts when the ambitious reporter Brea (Patton) loses her big story and potential her job right on the eve of her birthday, her boyfriend John (Epps) wants to surprise her and with his friend Darren (Alonso) he gets a romantic weekend planned.
Heading up to the mountain location the couple find themselves in a gas station where confrontation is quick to find them with help stranger Red (Goss) along with gangs, showing a potential large group of different enemies. The romantic weekend takes a turn, first with the appearance of Darren and his girlfriend Malia (Sanchez), but again by a deadly gang of human traffickers led by Red, who will kill to keep their secret.
Thoughts on Traffik
Characters – Brea is an ambitious reporter always taking her time researching a story before throwing it to her editor, this has seen her get herself into trouble, losing stories and potentially her job. In her personal life it is her birthday celebrating among friends with a romantic getaway being part of it. This getaway will give her the biggest story of her career, when she finds herself targeted by human traffickers who want her in their collection. John is the boyfriend that is getting nervous about the getaway as he is about to propose to Brea, he gets hooked up by the friend that will give them the location and will need to help Brea fight back against the people after them. Red is the leader of the human traffickers, he can charm, but he will show his deadly side if anybody gets in his way.
Performances – Paula Patton is the star of the show here, she gives us a strong performance that shows us just how determined she is to survive. Omar Epps, Luke Goss and the rest of the cast all do a great job letting Paula shine through in this film.
Story – The story here follows a couple on a romantic getaway that get targeted by human traffickers who want to keep their secret safe. This is a story that is designed the highlight the horrific crimes of human trafficking, not just in America, but worldwide. Away from the message behind everything, we do see the mix of a home invasion, chase and fightback elements of story telling putting a firm light on the idea that women will fight back, in this case Brea. The way everything unfolds is mostly predictable which is fine, nothing really hits the intensity levels wanted from the film.
Action/Crime – The action is a mix of chases and fight between victim and captures, they are quick instead of being over the top. The crime side of the film does show us just how easily this operation can happen to the victims and how organised it can be run.
Settings – The film is set in the mountain range outside California where the people can pick and choose who they take.
Scene of the Movie – Escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – One of the main twists is too predictable.
Final Thoughts – This is a generic action thriller that does highlight an important message of the horrors of the human trafficking world that leaves Paula Patton to shine.
Overall: Important, but Generic.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Norman F**king Rockwell by Lana Del Rey in Music
Mar 3, 2020
I have had a mixed relationship with the music of Lana Del Rey since her sensational debut album, Born To Die in 2010. I loved that album, and played it a lot! I still do. But always felt like it wasn’t really for me, yet I couldn’t help replaying it and humming the tunes. I also loved the lyrics, with their scathing satire of American life and values, and their downbeat vibe, always on the point of mania or depression, but never crying out for help, merely saying “look, this is our world, fuck it!” The trouble was, for the next 4 albums, despite one or two standout songs, the message and tone got mired in monotony and lack of memorable melodies – although the lyrics were still there.
I had all but given up hope of her becoming an artist of real worth by the end of the decade. It was a case of “remember when Lana Del Rey was the next big thing?” So, I was not expecting her sixth album to be not only very very good again, but potentially her best work to date, even surpassing Born To Die! You could hear it on the first listen – which for me took till December last year, despite its late August release. The reviews had been great, the award nominations rolled in and my attention was caught by this artist once again.
It took only a handful of listens before I had decided this was a great album! And now I am playing it a couple of times a week, continuing to get more out of the lyrics every time. It also plays really well as quiet background music, or loud, as a melancholy rock-out – a trick that isn’t easy to achieve. Her knowing nod to pop culture references, and the divine mixture of 50s Americana, folk and blues, can be a wonderful thing when it works. With six singles already released, there is proof this album has a more solid backbone tune-wise than the previous four efforts.
The task now is making her brand popular again in the singles market, as not one of the six released made it into the top 40, either stateside or in UK. However, the album was #3 in America and #1 in the UK, which gives me more hope that what we are seeing is the maturing of a genuine music artist, and not just an act, existing for sales. There are many, especially solo female artists, that could follow that example; worry more about making good music and less about “the product” and great things can happen.
For me, I love tracks 1-5 played in that order: they are all great tunes, and Venice Bitch at a playing time of 9:38 is an epic pop opus that makes me want to stand up and applaud! The final track, Hope is a Dangerous Thing for a Woman Like Me to Have, But I Have It, is also highly praiseworthy, summing up the message of the whole work beautifully. And it is a fine, honest, feminist, strong yet always vulnerable message. California is a long way away from my world, but I feel I know what she is talking about, somehow.
Look out also for some mesmeric retro home-movie videos on YouTube that segue some of the songs into a dreamy montage. Big fan!
I had all but given up hope of her becoming an artist of real worth by the end of the decade. It was a case of “remember when Lana Del Rey was the next big thing?” So, I was not expecting her sixth album to be not only very very good again, but potentially her best work to date, even surpassing Born To Die! You could hear it on the first listen – which for me took till December last year, despite its late August release. The reviews had been great, the award nominations rolled in and my attention was caught by this artist once again.
It took only a handful of listens before I had decided this was a great album! And now I am playing it a couple of times a week, continuing to get more out of the lyrics every time. It also plays really well as quiet background music, or loud, as a melancholy rock-out – a trick that isn’t easy to achieve. Her knowing nod to pop culture references, and the divine mixture of 50s Americana, folk and blues, can be a wonderful thing when it works. With six singles already released, there is proof this album has a more solid backbone tune-wise than the previous four efforts.
The task now is making her brand popular again in the singles market, as not one of the six released made it into the top 40, either stateside or in UK. However, the album was #3 in America and #1 in the UK, which gives me more hope that what we are seeing is the maturing of a genuine music artist, and not just an act, existing for sales. There are many, especially solo female artists, that could follow that example; worry more about making good music and less about “the product” and great things can happen.
For me, I love tracks 1-5 played in that order: they are all great tunes, and Venice Bitch at a playing time of 9:38 is an epic pop opus that makes me want to stand up and applaud! The final track, Hope is a Dangerous Thing for a Woman Like Me to Have, But I Have It, is also highly praiseworthy, summing up the message of the whole work beautifully. And it is a fine, honest, feminist, strong yet always vulnerable message. California is a long way away from my world, but I feel I know what she is talking about, somehow.
Look out also for some mesmeric retro home-movie videos on YouTube that segue some of the songs into a dreamy montage. Big fan!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Minari (2020) in Movies
Apr 23, 2021
Ensemble cast acting (2 more)
Music and Cinematography
Engrossing story
A Korean Hillbilly Elegy, done right
In "Minari", a struggling Korean immigrant family - the Yi's led by Jacob (Steven Yeun) and Monica (Yeri Han) - leave California for Arkansas farmland to seek a better life. While employed sexing chicks at a factory, Jacob dreams of farming the land on which they live to improve their lives. But will his obsession for this dream stand between him and his family?
The tale is told through the eyes of young David (Alan S. Kim), who is struggling with a hole in the heart and doubts about his mortality. The arrival of Monica's mother (Yuh-Jung Youn) is resented by David, but the woman is wise (as well as foul mouthed) and perhaps the pair will eventually learn to respect one another?
Positives:
- Gloriously bucolic cinematography (by Lachlan Milne) frames an engrossing story of an immigrant family striving for the American dream. The fact that it is semi-biographical for the writer/director Lee Isaac Chung (also Oscar nominated for both) makes it all the more fascinating.
- All of the leading cast work fabulously as an ensemble. Steven Yeun and Yuh-Jung Youn have all the Oscar nomination glory (with Youn as the Grandmother odds-on to win the Supporting Actress award on Sunday). But Yeri Han is also great and the film wouldn't work unless the two child actors (Alan Kim and Noel Cho) delivered, which they do in spades.
- The music, by Emile Mosseri, is strikingly good and - deservedly - also Oscar nominated.
Negatives:
- The ending. Now, I'm all for leaving things in a thoughtful way, allowing the viewer to ponder on things. But this ending was a little too obscure for me. You need to understand (with thanks to this article) that the vegetable Minari purifies (water), grows in unfavourable soils and only really thrives in its second season. Now, forgive me for not being 'up' on my Korean plant botany, but this was too much of a leap for me. For the uninitiated (I assume 95% of the audience) the ending will feel abrupt and unsatisfying.
Summary Thoughts on "Minari":
Having watched "Hillbilly Elegy" and "Minari" on consecutive nights, I was struck by the unexpected parallels between the films (over and above the Yi's calling themselves "Hillbillies"). Both feature a dysfunctional family (though less so here). And both also feature a lead character, from an impoverished background, trying to better themselves and follow the 'American dream'. And front and centre is the growing relationship between a young boy and their grandmother.
But there the similarities end. For I just loved the simplicity of the story-telling in "Minari". No fancy flashbacks and disjointed timeline here. And a sense that you were really in on the journey of both Jacob and his farm and of the relationship between David and his Grandma.
This was heading at one point for a 10 star rating for me. But - for me anyway - the obscurity of the ending left me with a "WTF" feeling. So I've tempered my rating. Still a great film though, and recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the post on One Mann's Movies on the web or Facebook. Thanks).
The tale is told through the eyes of young David (Alan S. Kim), who is struggling with a hole in the heart and doubts about his mortality. The arrival of Monica's mother (Yuh-Jung Youn) is resented by David, but the woman is wise (as well as foul mouthed) and perhaps the pair will eventually learn to respect one another?
Positives:
- Gloriously bucolic cinematography (by Lachlan Milne) frames an engrossing story of an immigrant family striving for the American dream. The fact that it is semi-biographical for the writer/director Lee Isaac Chung (also Oscar nominated for both) makes it all the more fascinating.
- All of the leading cast work fabulously as an ensemble. Steven Yeun and Yuh-Jung Youn have all the Oscar nomination glory (with Youn as the Grandmother odds-on to win the Supporting Actress award on Sunday). But Yeri Han is also great and the film wouldn't work unless the two child actors (Alan Kim and Noel Cho) delivered, which they do in spades.
- The music, by Emile Mosseri, is strikingly good and - deservedly - also Oscar nominated.
Negatives:
- The ending. Now, I'm all for leaving things in a thoughtful way, allowing the viewer to ponder on things. But this ending was a little too obscure for me. You need to understand (with thanks to this article) that the vegetable Minari purifies (water), grows in unfavourable soils and only really thrives in its second season. Now, forgive me for not being 'up' on my Korean plant botany, but this was too much of a leap for me. For the uninitiated (I assume 95% of the audience) the ending will feel abrupt and unsatisfying.
Summary Thoughts on "Minari":
Having watched "Hillbilly Elegy" and "Minari" on consecutive nights, I was struck by the unexpected parallels between the films (over and above the Yi's calling themselves "Hillbillies"). Both feature a dysfunctional family (though less so here). And both also feature a lead character, from an impoverished background, trying to better themselves and follow the 'American dream'. And front and centre is the growing relationship between a young boy and their grandmother.
But there the similarities end. For I just loved the simplicity of the story-telling in "Minari". No fancy flashbacks and disjointed timeline here. And a sense that you were really in on the journey of both Jacob and his farm and of the relationship between David and his Grandma.
This was heading at one point for a 10 star rating for me. But - for me anyway - the obscurity of the ending left me with a "WTF" feeling. So I've tempered my rating. Still a great film though, and recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the post on One Mann's Movies on the web or Facebook. Thanks).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Why Him? (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When an “out of touch” Midwesterner owner of a paper factory (Bryan Cranston) decides to take his family to California to spend Christmas with his college student daughter (Zoey Deutch) and meet her new tech-millionaire, but socially inept boyfriend (James Franco), a typical father vs boyfriend faceoff ensues. For many, Why Him? will be enough to satisfy the comedy itch. Those expecting to find the next gut busting comedy will be disappointed, while those thinking it will be a dull comedy will be pleasantly surprised. This film is somewhere in the middle. A constant stream of chuckles with a few bigger laughs here or there. But ultimately forgettable at the lack of main characters to root for.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Casablanca (1942) in Movies
Feb 13, 2019
A classic in every sense of the word
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns, in all the world, she had to walk into mine."
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hostage (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Chief of Police Jeff Talley (Bruce Willis) is a man filled with turmoil. A former S.W.A.T. officer and top hostage negotiator for the Los Angeles Police Department, Talley now toils away in a quite California town where crime is light and very infrequent. The change in locales was made necessary for Jeff in the aftermath of a hostage negotiation where things did not go accordingly leaving Jeff with more questions than answers.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.