Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Good Will Hunting (1997) in Movies
Jul 9, 2021
Well Deserved Oscars for Williams, Damon and Affleck
One of the benefits of “Secret Movie Night” is that it forces me to watch (or rewatch) a film that I would not seek out on my own. Such is the case with this month’s selection - GOOD WILL HUNTING - the film that made Matt Damon and Ben Affleck stars and earned the late, great Robin Williams his only Academy Award.
Leaning hard on the mantra “write what you know”, GOOD WILL HUNTING tells the tale of a generationally talented math prodigy, who grew up in South Boston and fights his demons to find his place in this world.
Famously, the screenplay of this film earned Damon and Affleck Oscars for Best Original Screenplay and it is well deserved. They paint a picture of life of these “Southies” that appears to me real and genuine. The “family” feel of the friendship of the main characters rings true and Damon and Affleck have real chemistry with each other - like old friends playing off each other.
However, the relationship between Affleck and Damon’s character in this film is only the 3rd best relationship in this film. The best, of course, is the relationship between Will Hunting (Damon) and the shrink that is assigned to him, played by Robin Williams. It is a haunting, raw, emotional and REAL performance by Williams - one very deserving of the Oscar - and I was more than a little sad to watch this performance knowing that this uniquely talented performer is no longer with us.
The surprise to me in this rewatch of the film is the performance of Minnie Driver as a young lady that becomes emotionally attached to Will. Driver’s performance as Harvard student Skylar is also real and the struggles of her character to get a connection with Will was heartbreaking to watch.
Good Will Hunting also features strong supporting work by Stellan Skarsgard as the MIT Math Professor who discovers - and then becomes jealous of - Will’s talents and Ben Affleck’s younger brother, a then unknown Casey Affleck, who steals almost every scene he is in.
All of this would not have worked without the magnificent, Oscar nominated, Direction of Gus Van Sant (DRUGSTORE COWBOY). He was the perfect choice to direct this intimate, personal drama and he has a way of drawing out the emotions and rawness of the characters on the screen without being cloying or overdramatic. He was a strong contender for Best Director that year (as was Good Will Hunting for Best Picture) but it ran into a roadblock that was James Cameron and TITANIC.
If you have never seen this film - or if you haven’t seen this in quite some time - check out GOOD WILL HUNTING, it is well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Leaning hard on the mantra “write what you know”, GOOD WILL HUNTING tells the tale of a generationally talented math prodigy, who grew up in South Boston and fights his demons to find his place in this world.
Famously, the screenplay of this film earned Damon and Affleck Oscars for Best Original Screenplay and it is well deserved. They paint a picture of life of these “Southies” that appears to me real and genuine. The “family” feel of the friendship of the main characters rings true and Damon and Affleck have real chemistry with each other - like old friends playing off each other.
However, the relationship between Affleck and Damon’s character in this film is only the 3rd best relationship in this film. The best, of course, is the relationship between Will Hunting (Damon) and the shrink that is assigned to him, played by Robin Williams. It is a haunting, raw, emotional and REAL performance by Williams - one very deserving of the Oscar - and I was more than a little sad to watch this performance knowing that this uniquely talented performer is no longer with us.
The surprise to me in this rewatch of the film is the performance of Minnie Driver as a young lady that becomes emotionally attached to Will. Driver’s performance as Harvard student Skylar is also real and the struggles of her character to get a connection with Will was heartbreaking to watch.
Good Will Hunting also features strong supporting work by Stellan Skarsgard as the MIT Math Professor who discovers - and then becomes jealous of - Will’s talents and Ben Affleck’s younger brother, a then unknown Casey Affleck, who steals almost every scene he is in.
All of this would not have worked without the magnificent, Oscar nominated, Direction of Gus Van Sant (DRUGSTORE COWBOY). He was the perfect choice to direct this intimate, personal drama and he has a way of drawing out the emotions and rawness of the characters on the screen without being cloying or overdramatic. He was a strong contender for Best Director that year (as was Good Will Hunting for Best Picture) but it ran into a roadblock that was James Cameron and TITANIC.
If you have never seen this film - or if you haven’t seen this in quite some time - check out GOOD WILL HUNTING, it is well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Shrek the Third (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
When last we saw the Ogre Shrek, (Mike Meyers), he and his wife Fiona (Cameron Diaz), they were happily celebrating their love and triumph over the dastardly Prince Charmings (Rupert Everett), latest attempt to rule the magical kingdom of Far, Far Away. In the new film Shrek the Third,
Shrek has grown weary of filling in for the ailing King and years to return to his swamp home with Fiona.
When a twist of fate leaves Shrek in line for the throne, he wants no part of it, and seeks to find the next heir, Arthur (Justin
Timberlake), and install him as the next leader of the land. With Donkey (Eddie Murphy), and Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas), at his side, Shrek sets off to meet Arthur and bring him to his future
kingdom.
Of course things do not go as planned, as upon meeting Arthur, Shrek and his friends are shocked to learn that he is a meek individual who is constantly picked on by his fellow classmates, and is far from King material.
Undaunted, the trio set back home with Arthur and find themselves at odds over Shrek’s claims that Arthur was granted the throne as the last wish of the former monarch. The fact that Shrek was actually the chosen successor is of little concern to Shrek as he is more concerned with returning home and the recent news that he is to become a father.
When fate steps in and strands them during the journey home, Shrek and friends encounter a former
eccentric professor (Eric Idle) of Arthur, who magically whisks the adventurers
back home, but with some unexpected and amusing side effects.
During this time, Prince Charming has mounted an attack on the Kingdom with the aid of several local villains in an attempt to take the crown for himself and rid the world of Shrek. What follows is a Frantic adventure as Shrek and his friends must find a way to save the day and help Arthur find his destiny.
While I was a big fan of the previous two films in the series, this Shrek did not work for me nearly as well as the other two did.
Yes there are some funny moments and I am sure this film will do huge business at the box office, but it is severely lacking.
First and foremost is the humor in the film, which while at times funny, is far to few and far between to make an effective comedy.
The previous films were loaded with laughs and pop culture references which in this one are more subdued and confined. I kept thinking while I watched the film that much of this film could easily have been comprised of outtakes from the previous films as there is precious little new material in the film and many of the jokes just do not seem that inspired.
Another issue with the film is that Murphy and Banderas are far to underused especially since their characters are the most interesting in the film, and they generate the biggest laughs when they are allowed to shine.
The film has a cute quality to it and own its own, it would be a decent family film. However when compared with the previous film in the series, this Shrek is Far, Far and Away the worst of the three.
Shrek has grown weary of filling in for the ailing King and years to return to his swamp home with Fiona.
When a twist of fate leaves Shrek in line for the throne, he wants no part of it, and seeks to find the next heir, Arthur (Justin
Timberlake), and install him as the next leader of the land. With Donkey (Eddie Murphy), and Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas), at his side, Shrek sets off to meet Arthur and bring him to his future
kingdom.
Of course things do not go as planned, as upon meeting Arthur, Shrek and his friends are shocked to learn that he is a meek individual who is constantly picked on by his fellow classmates, and is far from King material.
Undaunted, the trio set back home with Arthur and find themselves at odds over Shrek’s claims that Arthur was granted the throne as the last wish of the former monarch. The fact that Shrek was actually the chosen successor is of little concern to Shrek as he is more concerned with returning home and the recent news that he is to become a father.
When fate steps in and strands them during the journey home, Shrek and friends encounter a former
eccentric professor (Eric Idle) of Arthur, who magically whisks the adventurers
back home, but with some unexpected and amusing side effects.
During this time, Prince Charming has mounted an attack on the Kingdom with the aid of several local villains in an attempt to take the crown for himself and rid the world of Shrek. What follows is a Frantic adventure as Shrek and his friends must find a way to save the day and help Arthur find his destiny.
While I was a big fan of the previous two films in the series, this Shrek did not work for me nearly as well as the other two did.
Yes there are some funny moments and I am sure this film will do huge business at the box office, but it is severely lacking.
First and foremost is the humor in the film, which while at times funny, is far to few and far between to make an effective comedy.
The previous films were loaded with laughs and pop culture references which in this one are more subdued and confined. I kept thinking while I watched the film that much of this film could easily have been comprised of outtakes from the previous films as there is precious little new material in the film and many of the jokes just do not seem that inspired.
Another issue with the film is that Murphy and Banderas are far to underused especially since their characters are the most interesting in the film, and they generate the biggest laughs when they are allowed to shine.
The film has a cute quality to it and own its own, it would be a decent family film. However when compared with the previous film in the series, this Shrek is Far, Far and Away the worst of the three.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Don’t let the “big anime eyes” or unusual title fool you into thinking this will be a lame film. Yes, this movie is based off a manga you’ve probably never heard of. Yes, it is easy to dismiss this film as something that will bomb like last year’s Mortal Engines. But if you place your faith in director Robert Rodriguez and writer/producer James Cameron, you will be treated to a surprisingly solid narrative and fast paced visual spectacle that is worth the price of admission to view in the theater.
The biggest praise I can give to Alita: Battle Angel is that the visually stunning world they create on screen feels “lived in” and real. I found it easy to accept and understand the rules of that world they built and explained throughout film. And while we are not given a full history of their world, we are given enough explanation to understand how or why something existed in their world. This gives us the opportunity to focus on the story of “self-discovery” that Alita ultimately is.
Rosa Salazar motion capture performance of Alita is excellent. Not only in movement but in emotionally delivery. You get the real sense of discovery with this amazing world that Alita is being exposed to. Additionally, as she begins to become more self-aware of who she is, you can understand the emotion and she struggles with love, trust and obligation. Furthermore, from a technical standpoint, by the end of the movie, I was not thinking of Alita being something that is motion captured and instead just accepted her as part of this onscreen world they delivered. This is really something that becomes make or break with this film for some people and it’s easy to dismiss it based on the trailers. However in context of the film, it works and does a good job drawing you in.
In addition to Alita, we are given strong performances from the ensemble cast of characters in the film. Christoph Waltz play’s Alita surrogate father Dr. Dyson Ido, Keean Johnson as the street smart and resourceful Hugo, Mahershala Ali as the gangster type gate keeper Vector, Jennifer Connelly as the morally ambiguous goal focused scientist and Ed Skrein as the cocky bounty hunter. Each of these characters play their roles well and help usher in the different levels of the society they live in. Perhaps the once complaint I have of this film is that the pacing of this film is so fast that we miss an opportunity to obtain a bit more backstory from some of these characters. It is not a big loss, but it makes you wonder if this film would have been better served as a 10 episode Netflix series or something of that nature.
In the end, I found myself enjoying this film more than I expected I would. Is it a perfect film? No. Nor does it invoke emotionally deep existential thought that the manga it is based on provides. But it does tell a sold story of self-discovery in a visually stunning and fully realized world. It is fun, fast paced and something that should be seen in the theaters. And if possible, do yourself a favor and watch it in 3D. This film has some of the best 3D effects since Avatar. The 3D doesn’t feel like an afterthought or gimmicky, but instead works to enhance the on screen world.
The biggest praise I can give to Alita: Battle Angel is that the visually stunning world they create on screen feels “lived in” and real. I found it easy to accept and understand the rules of that world they built and explained throughout film. And while we are not given a full history of their world, we are given enough explanation to understand how or why something existed in their world. This gives us the opportunity to focus on the story of “self-discovery” that Alita ultimately is.
Rosa Salazar motion capture performance of Alita is excellent. Not only in movement but in emotionally delivery. You get the real sense of discovery with this amazing world that Alita is being exposed to. Additionally, as she begins to become more self-aware of who she is, you can understand the emotion and she struggles with love, trust and obligation. Furthermore, from a technical standpoint, by the end of the movie, I was not thinking of Alita being something that is motion captured and instead just accepted her as part of this onscreen world they delivered. This is really something that becomes make or break with this film for some people and it’s easy to dismiss it based on the trailers. However in context of the film, it works and does a good job drawing you in.
In addition to Alita, we are given strong performances from the ensemble cast of characters in the film. Christoph Waltz play’s Alita surrogate father Dr. Dyson Ido, Keean Johnson as the street smart and resourceful Hugo, Mahershala Ali as the gangster type gate keeper Vector, Jennifer Connelly as the morally ambiguous goal focused scientist and Ed Skrein as the cocky bounty hunter. Each of these characters play their roles well and help usher in the different levels of the society they live in. Perhaps the once complaint I have of this film is that the pacing of this film is so fast that we miss an opportunity to obtain a bit more backstory from some of these characters. It is not a big loss, but it makes you wonder if this film would have been better served as a 10 episode Netflix series or something of that nature.
In the end, I found myself enjoying this film more than I expected I would. Is it a perfect film? No. Nor does it invoke emotionally deep existential thought that the manga it is based on provides. But it does tell a sold story of self-discovery in a visually stunning and fully realized world. It is fun, fast paced and something that should be seen in the theaters. And if possible, do yourself a favor and watch it in 3D. This film has some of the best 3D effects since Avatar. The 3D doesn’t feel like an afterthought or gimmicky, but instead works to enhance the on screen world.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
First off, a disclaimer: I have not read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting; nor do I have any kids of my own. That being said….
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated We Bought a Zoo (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
From the director of Jerry Maguire and Almost Famous, Cameron Crowe has brought us a great new film starring Mat Damon, Scarlett Johansson, Thomas Hadden Church and up and coming star Elle Fanning. Packed with amazing talent; “We Bought a Zoo” is a heartwarming true story of a man who wants to start over and in doing so, he provides a new life for his young family and his new friends.
Benjamin Mee (Mat Damon), a widowed father of two young children Dylan (Colin Ford) and Rosie (Magie Elizabeth Jones) are in need of a new start. Benjamin’s brother Duncan (Thomas Haden Church) has always provided Benjamin with useless and impractical advice. Only this time he strikes the nail on the head by telling his brother that he has to start over. He teams up with Mr. Stevens (J.B Smoove), a first time real estate agent and his daughter Rosie to find the perfect home to start there new future. When they come across the perfect house it comes with some big responsibilities. The Mee family have just become the new owners of a struggling Zoo (Rosemoore Wildlife Park). The Zoo is run by Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johansson) head zookeeper, Peter, Robin and her cousin Lily (Elle Fanning).They are in need of someone to take charge of the Zoo or it will close forever. With over forty seven animal species, the Zoo is in need of someone with lots of heart and determination to keep it from closing. Although everybody has doubts about Benjamin, even himself, he never gives up. Benjamin and his family are able to start fresh and after an argument here and there among father and son, are able to leave the past behind and look forward to the future.
“We Bought a Zoo” is such a heartwarming true story that will leave you with inspiration. The film is filled with vibrant colors, great cinematography, amazing actors and filled with such inspiration that I would be surprised if it is not in this years Oscar line up. Mat Damon surely delivers in his portrayal of Benjamin Mee. Most children actors don’t go far in the showbiz but great things come in small packages with Magie Elizabeth Jones. At her very young age of seven and her performance in this film I would be surprised if she doesn’t end up being a big star. Elle Fanning and Colin Ford make the perfect young couple and were perfectly paired up as the roles of Colin and Lily and like her sister Dakota Fanning she is becoming a great young actress. I wasn’t very impressed with Scarlett Johansson in this film as she always in my opinion plays the same sort of character in most of her movies with the exception of The Black Widow in the Iron Man films. Though having a somewhat small part in this film, Thomas Haden Church always seems to live up to the characters he portrays especially as Duncan.
This film is one that definitely can not be missed and is a perfect film to kick of the new year. If you love animals and are wanting to see a heartfelt film you will with out a doubt love this film and is definitely Oscar worthy. I left the theater feeling inspired and wanting to help animals that are going extinct. Big cats are disappearing at an alarming rate and with our help we can cause an uproar. To help go to causeanuproar.org to help.
Benjamin Mee (Mat Damon), a widowed father of two young children Dylan (Colin Ford) and Rosie (Magie Elizabeth Jones) are in need of a new start. Benjamin’s brother Duncan (Thomas Haden Church) has always provided Benjamin with useless and impractical advice. Only this time he strikes the nail on the head by telling his brother that he has to start over. He teams up with Mr. Stevens (J.B Smoove), a first time real estate agent and his daughter Rosie to find the perfect home to start there new future. When they come across the perfect house it comes with some big responsibilities. The Mee family have just become the new owners of a struggling Zoo (Rosemoore Wildlife Park). The Zoo is run by Kelly Foster (Scarlett Johansson) head zookeeper, Peter, Robin and her cousin Lily (Elle Fanning).They are in need of someone to take charge of the Zoo or it will close forever. With over forty seven animal species, the Zoo is in need of someone with lots of heart and determination to keep it from closing. Although everybody has doubts about Benjamin, even himself, he never gives up. Benjamin and his family are able to start fresh and after an argument here and there among father and son, are able to leave the past behind and look forward to the future.
“We Bought a Zoo” is such a heartwarming true story that will leave you with inspiration. The film is filled with vibrant colors, great cinematography, amazing actors and filled with such inspiration that I would be surprised if it is not in this years Oscar line up. Mat Damon surely delivers in his portrayal of Benjamin Mee. Most children actors don’t go far in the showbiz but great things come in small packages with Magie Elizabeth Jones. At her very young age of seven and her performance in this film I would be surprised if she doesn’t end up being a big star. Elle Fanning and Colin Ford make the perfect young couple and were perfectly paired up as the roles of Colin and Lily and like her sister Dakota Fanning she is becoming a great young actress. I wasn’t very impressed with Scarlett Johansson in this film as she always in my opinion plays the same sort of character in most of her movies with the exception of The Black Widow in the Iron Man films. Though having a somewhat small part in this film, Thomas Haden Church always seems to live up to the characters he portrays especially as Duncan.
This film is one that definitely can not be missed and is a perfect film to kick of the new year. If you love animals and are wanting to see a heartfelt film you will with out a doubt love this film and is definitely Oscar worthy. I left the theater feeling inspired and wanting to help animals that are going extinct. Big cats are disappearing at an alarming rate and with our help we can cause an uproar. To help go to causeanuproar.org to help.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Weekend at Bernie's (1989) in Movies
May 1, 2018
Could Have Been Better
Two friends show up at their boss Bernie's beachhouse for a weekend retreat only to find Bernie dead. To maintain innocence, they decide to go through with the weekend while hiding Bernie in plain sight for all to see.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Far, far away from it's potential...
Contains spoilers, click to show
After 22 years of waiting, since 1983′s "Return Of The Jedi", we were sat in the auditorium ready to witness the epic moment when Obi Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker would finally turn on one and other and Darth Vader's conception would be complete.
As the 'Clone War' came to a close, the Jedi had been all but wiped of the face of a galaxy far, far away and Chancellor Palpatine had ascended to become the emperor of the newly formed 'Galactic Empire', that moment had finally arrived. Was it worth the wait? Well, since the bar had be not so much lowered, but obliterated by the the first two prequels, measured with those in mind, then yes, absolutely! In fact, it does stand up well, and on the initial viewing, it was outstanding. A visual feast or choreography, visual style and epic art direction, everything you would expect from the man who had changed cinema forever, 28 years earlier.
The only issue is that even though the fans wanted nothing more that to see this duel, the rest of the prequel franchise was merely filler, and a series of plots designed to delay the inevitable battle and to give the audience anything but what they had expected. But after a ridiculous 22 year wait, there was almost no good ideas left that hadn't been explored in two decades of fan fiction, leaving all the bad ones to be included in Lucus' second, no rather third rate scripts! We had been told that he was waiting for the technology to make these films, but what was he waiting for exactly? The technology to animate the, perhaps? The visual effects in these films, though sparkling and perfect in its details, are hollow and do not match the standards of the original films, and begs the question as to why not? Four years since the release of "Revenge Of The Sith", James Cameron would finally release a film which he had being developing the technology for, for over 10 years, ("Avatar") and the result: Groundbreaking cinema, in both the 3D and Mo-cap tech, raising the bar, as "Star Wars" had done three decades earlier.
But this film had restored something which the franchise had all but destroyed with episodes one and two. This finally felt something like the original films and was a joy to watch, even though it still falls short of the mark. The acting is poor in all the prequels, which account to Lucas' directorial style, favoring green screen and CGI over acting. But John William's score is first rate, as it has been throughout the entire saga, but this was both classic and moving, a score truly in touch with the audiences love and feeling towards the films, sadly devoid in most other aspects of the production.
That's not to say that technically this was well produced, because on paper, in the computers, and certainly in sound editing suites, it was perfect, with levels of audio visual detail to die for and the scope was awesome. But in the end, it is a hollow shell of what it should have been. "Episode III" though, is the most fulfilling of the three, but all of them rely of the decades of loyalty given to them, because without it, these would probably be laughed out of the auditoriums.
But having said all that, I enjoy this film, as a part of the saga, and still look forward to seeing it, and some of the sequences in this film , though far from perfectly realized, are fun and enjoyable. This is leagues below "Star Wars" and the superior "Empire Strikes Back", but still worth a watch.
As the 'Clone War' came to a close, the Jedi had been all but wiped of the face of a galaxy far, far away and Chancellor Palpatine had ascended to become the emperor of the newly formed 'Galactic Empire', that moment had finally arrived. Was it worth the wait? Well, since the bar had be not so much lowered, but obliterated by the the first two prequels, measured with those in mind, then yes, absolutely! In fact, it does stand up well, and on the initial viewing, it was outstanding. A visual feast or choreography, visual style and epic art direction, everything you would expect from the man who had changed cinema forever, 28 years earlier.
The only issue is that even though the fans wanted nothing more that to see this duel, the rest of the prequel franchise was merely filler, and a series of plots designed to delay the inevitable battle and to give the audience anything but what they had expected. But after a ridiculous 22 year wait, there was almost no good ideas left that hadn't been explored in two decades of fan fiction, leaving all the bad ones to be included in Lucus' second, no rather third rate scripts! We had been told that he was waiting for the technology to make these films, but what was he waiting for exactly? The technology to animate the, perhaps? The visual effects in these films, though sparkling and perfect in its details, are hollow and do not match the standards of the original films, and begs the question as to why not? Four years since the release of "Revenge Of The Sith", James Cameron would finally release a film which he had being developing the technology for, for over 10 years, ("Avatar") and the result: Groundbreaking cinema, in both the 3D and Mo-cap tech, raising the bar, as "Star Wars" had done three decades earlier.
But this film had restored something which the franchise had all but destroyed with episodes one and two. This finally felt something like the original films and was a joy to watch, even though it still falls short of the mark. The acting is poor in all the prequels, which account to Lucas' directorial style, favoring green screen and CGI over acting. But John William's score is first rate, as it has been throughout the entire saga, but this was both classic and moving, a score truly in touch with the audiences love and feeling towards the films, sadly devoid in most other aspects of the production.
That's not to say that technically this was well produced, because on paper, in the computers, and certainly in sound editing suites, it was perfect, with levels of audio visual detail to die for and the scope was awesome. But in the end, it is a hollow shell of what it should have been. "Episode III" though, is the most fulfilling of the three, but all of them rely of the decades of loyalty given to them, because without it, these would probably be laughed out of the auditoriums.
But having said all that, I enjoy this film, as a part of the saga, and still look forward to seeing it, and some of the sequences in this film , though far from perfectly realized, are fun and enjoyable. This is leagues below "Star Wars" and the superior "Empire Strikes Back", but still worth a watch.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Green Room (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
After a fruitless tour, a punk group, The Ain’t Rights, find themselves out of money and stealing gas to get back home. When a recommendation from a fan looking for an interview leads them to play one more show out in the backwoods of Oregon to a crowd of white supremacists, they become witnesses to a murder and barricade themselves in the green room. With no clear escape, they enter into a deadly battle of wills with the owner of the club, and his band of skinheads, and quickly discover that they have no intention of letting them leave alive.
It’s to the point now where if the A24 logo is at the front of a flick, chances are I’m handing over my hard-earned cash. Enemy, Locke, A Most Violent Year, Ex Machina, Slow West – they’ve been distributing some of my favorite films from the last few years and are fast becoming a powerhouse for indie movies, not unlike Focus Features a little more than a decade ago. Unfortunately, this means I set my expectations a little too high on my way into Green Room, which was not hard to do when you combine A24’s track record with the emerging talent of writer/director Jeremy Saulnier. Blue Ruin, his second feature, was the surprise indie hit of 2013. Expertly crafted and deliberately paced, it harkened back to 70’s-style bleak and gritty filmmaking. Green Room also features some of the DNA that made Blue Ruin great, those quite moments of high-tension leading into heart-stopping explosions of extreme violence are present and accounted for, but a thinner plot and characters who are severely underdeveloped show that this story, to its detriment, was in much more of a rush to get where it was going than its predecessor was.
Green Room’s major selling point is of course, Patrick Stewart. Adding one part Cameron Alexander (Stacy Keach’s character from American History X) to one part Walter White/Heisenberg, his performance will undoubtedly go down as one of the greatest departures of our time. Having said that, and believe me when I say I’m loathe to fly in the face of what an exceptional casting choice this was, he is frustratingly underutilized. It does speak to what an unrivaled talent he is when he can build most of his menace from the other side of a locked door, but regardless of how solid the performance is, his presence is merely a set-piece. A role with this little screen time rivals Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (they both had what probably amounted to about 15 minutes of screen time, or less), but I’m certain Stewart’s won’t leave as lasting an impression. To be blunt, if you’re queuing up just for him, you may come away disappointed.
The flip side to this comes about through Imogen Poots as Amber, friend to the murder victim and unfortunate enough to get trapped backstage with the band. Much of the best dialogue, along with some incredible moments of jaw-dropping spontaneity, comes her way and it’s her deadpan delivery that steals the show. Though we are supposed to root for the band, it was her cynical “inside man” that drew me further into their nightmare situation and kept me hoping that she might be the one to survive and give the skinheads the brutal justice they deserved.
For now, I’m sticking to my guns and giving Green Room just half marks, but I look forward to a second viewing at home in a few months, where I’m certain my opinion of it will improve, due to my expectations being more aligned and the foreknowledge that this is simple and standard survival horror fare…that just happens to feature Picard as a neo-Nazi.
It’s to the point now where if the A24 logo is at the front of a flick, chances are I’m handing over my hard-earned cash. Enemy, Locke, A Most Violent Year, Ex Machina, Slow West – they’ve been distributing some of my favorite films from the last few years and are fast becoming a powerhouse for indie movies, not unlike Focus Features a little more than a decade ago. Unfortunately, this means I set my expectations a little too high on my way into Green Room, which was not hard to do when you combine A24’s track record with the emerging talent of writer/director Jeremy Saulnier. Blue Ruin, his second feature, was the surprise indie hit of 2013. Expertly crafted and deliberately paced, it harkened back to 70’s-style bleak and gritty filmmaking. Green Room also features some of the DNA that made Blue Ruin great, those quite moments of high-tension leading into heart-stopping explosions of extreme violence are present and accounted for, but a thinner plot and characters who are severely underdeveloped show that this story, to its detriment, was in much more of a rush to get where it was going than its predecessor was.
Green Room’s major selling point is of course, Patrick Stewart. Adding one part Cameron Alexander (Stacy Keach’s character from American History X) to one part Walter White/Heisenberg, his performance will undoubtedly go down as one of the greatest departures of our time. Having said that, and believe me when I say I’m loathe to fly in the face of what an exceptional casting choice this was, he is frustratingly underutilized. It does speak to what an unrivaled talent he is when he can build most of his menace from the other side of a locked door, but regardless of how solid the performance is, his presence is merely a set-piece. A role with this little screen time rivals Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (they both had what probably amounted to about 15 minutes of screen time, or less), but I’m certain Stewart’s won’t leave as lasting an impression. To be blunt, if you’re queuing up just for him, you may come away disappointed.
The flip side to this comes about through Imogen Poots as Amber, friend to the murder victim and unfortunate enough to get trapped backstage with the band. Much of the best dialogue, along with some incredible moments of jaw-dropping spontaneity, comes her way and it’s her deadpan delivery that steals the show. Though we are supposed to root for the band, it was her cynical “inside man” that drew me further into their nightmare situation and kept me hoping that she might be the one to survive and give the skinheads the brutal justice they deserved.
For now, I’m sticking to my guns and giving Green Room just half marks, but I look forward to a second viewing at home in a few months, where I’m certain my opinion of it will improve, due to my expectations being more aligned and the foreknowledge that this is simple and standard survival horror fare…that just happens to feature Picard as a neo-Nazi.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
Misses more than it hits
The first Gal Gadot-led WONDER WOMAN film (2017) is generally regarded by most (myself included) as the finest film in the DCEU and Gal Gadot’s portrayal of Diana Prince/Wonder Woman is the highlight of any DCEU film that she appears in, so it was with much (delayed) anticipation that a viewing of WONDER WOMAN 1984 (finally) took place.
It’s too bad that the filmmakers couldn’t take the time in the delay of this movie’s release to craft a better film.
WONDER WOMAN 1984 takes the titular character and places this ageless Supehero in the titular timeframe. What Director Patty Jenkins (who so wonderfully brought us the first Wonder Woman film) and the her co-script writer Geoff Johns and all of the others who crafted this film failed to do was to capitalize on their hero and this timeline.
After an opening scene that flashbacks to Diana Prince’s youth on her isolated island of Themyscira (a scene who’s sole purpose, it seems, is to shoehorn favorites Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen from the first film into this one). We then go to a fight in a 1980’s mall (in a clear homage to such fights as the ones in COMMANDO and TRUE LIES - action sequences, that I might add, that were done better by Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron). So back-to-back, this film starts off on unsure footing.
Enter Pedro Pascal’s main villain Maxwell Lord with the ability of a truly wonderful, memorable, villain to elevate the proceedings.
He does not.
Plain and simple, Pascal’s Maxwell Lord just doesn’t work as as a villain. He would have been a nice “secondary villain”.
Which is how I would recommend that Jenkins and Johns approach this character and film, for the secondary villain, Barbara Minerva/Cheetah worked better for me.
As portrayed by Kristen Wiig, we first encounter Minerva as a mousey, insecure co-worker of Diana Prince but slowly - over the course of the film - Minerva becomes stronger and more self-assured and when her transformation into Cheetah is complete, she is a viable opponent for Wonder Woman. And with Gadot’s strong (expected) portrayal of Diana/Wonder Woman the scenes of these 2 playing off each other - both physically and verbally - elevates this film above mediocrity.
As does the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor (from the first film). This relationship was one of the best parts of the first film, so the filmmakers had to figure out how to bring him back - and how they decided to do it was “fine” (with one issue I have that I can’t reveal but I also think a simple “tweak” in the storyline would have fixed). Because these 2 have such tremendous character - and because Pascal’s villain character is weak - this movie spends way too much time on Diana and Steve and this film loses it’s focus multiple times.
But…a few good action scenes would have saved things - but there aren’t really any. Certainly none that are as visually interesting, and emotionally satisfying, as the “no man’s land” scene in the first film.
This movie is “fine” and with the performances of Gadot, Pine and Wiig, they elevate the needle a little above “fine”. So I will give this movie about a point more than I (probably) should - which puts this film as one of the better films of the DCEU - which says more about the state of the DCEU than it does about this movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It’s too bad that the filmmakers couldn’t take the time in the delay of this movie’s release to craft a better film.
WONDER WOMAN 1984 takes the titular character and places this ageless Supehero in the titular timeframe. What Director Patty Jenkins (who so wonderfully brought us the first Wonder Woman film) and the her co-script writer Geoff Johns and all of the others who crafted this film failed to do was to capitalize on their hero and this timeline.
After an opening scene that flashbacks to Diana Prince’s youth on her isolated island of Themyscira (a scene who’s sole purpose, it seems, is to shoehorn favorites Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen from the first film into this one). We then go to a fight in a 1980’s mall (in a clear homage to such fights as the ones in COMMANDO and TRUE LIES - action sequences, that I might add, that were done better by Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron). So back-to-back, this film starts off on unsure footing.
Enter Pedro Pascal’s main villain Maxwell Lord with the ability of a truly wonderful, memorable, villain to elevate the proceedings.
He does not.
Plain and simple, Pascal’s Maxwell Lord just doesn’t work as as a villain. He would have been a nice “secondary villain”.
Which is how I would recommend that Jenkins and Johns approach this character and film, for the secondary villain, Barbara Minerva/Cheetah worked better for me.
As portrayed by Kristen Wiig, we first encounter Minerva as a mousey, insecure co-worker of Diana Prince but slowly - over the course of the film - Minerva becomes stronger and more self-assured and when her transformation into Cheetah is complete, she is a viable opponent for Wonder Woman. And with Gadot’s strong (expected) portrayal of Diana/Wonder Woman the scenes of these 2 playing off each other - both physically and verbally - elevates this film above mediocrity.
As does the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor (from the first film). This relationship was one of the best parts of the first film, so the filmmakers had to figure out how to bring him back - and how they decided to do it was “fine” (with one issue I have that I can’t reveal but I also think a simple “tweak” in the storyline would have fixed). Because these 2 have such tremendous character - and because Pascal’s villain character is weak - this movie spends way too much time on Diana and Steve and this film loses it’s focus multiple times.
But…a few good action scenes would have saved things - but there aren’t really any. Certainly none that are as visually interesting, and emotionally satisfying, as the “no man’s land” scene in the first film.
This movie is “fine” and with the performances of Gadot, Pine and Wiig, they elevate the needle a little above “fine”. So I will give this movie about a point more than I (probably) should - which puts this film as one of the better films of the DCEU - which says more about the state of the DCEU than it does about this movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Christine (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
If it bleeds, it leads.
Life is precious. Bad times always get good again eventually. Winter turns to spring and you feel the warmth of the sun on your face again. So what drives someone – anyone – to the point of despair sufficient for them to ignore all of the potential upturns and to take their own life?
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.
Christine tells the tragic tale of Florida TV news reporter Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide live on air in 1974. Yes, this is a spoiler, but since most people have some sense of what a film is about before they go to see it, it’s not really a big one. And I think in this case, knowing the outcome is pretty essential since otherwise you will likely spend 2 hours getting increasingly irritated by the erratic behaviour of the lead character and may possibly turn it off. With this movie, the telling is in the journey – not the destination.
London-born Rebecca Hall (“The Town”) plays the 30 year old virgin Christine; a damaged article with past mental issues, she has been moved by her mother Peg (J Smith-Cameron) from Boston to Florida to make a fresh start. But the station is struggling and Christine’s insistence on pursuing dull but worthy stories, such as zoning disputes, isn’t helping: she is driving her boss (Tracy Letts) to distraction. Despite her spiky demeanour and unapproachable nature, her colleagues including Jean (Maria Dizzia), the show’s anchor (and potential deflowerer) George (Michael C Hall) and weatherman Steve (Timothy Simons from “Veep”) all do their best to support her. It is part of the true tragedy of the piece that her downward spiral continues despite their best efforts.
Hall is outstanding in the role. She portrays the crazily compulsive behaviour of Chubbuck extremely well: perfectionism gone wild as she attempts to edit out 3 seconds off a clip while the film is already in the machine. At times the other-worldliness and creepiness of her character become extremely unsettling; an excruciating scene with a married couple in a bar being a case in point. Overall it’s an extremely thoughtful portrayal that is as quiet and unassuming as Ruth Negga’s in “Loving” (but without the smiles or the charm). I would like to think that after the Oscars team picked the ‘obvious contenders’ of Portman, Stone and Huppert, and with a place ‘reserved’ for Streep, they were left with Negga and Hall and had a “dammit, we can only pick 1 out of 2 here” moment.
Letts as the crotchety station chief also delivers a fine performance, and it’s a shame that the script never gave us the chance to see his post-shooting reactions, since the ‘if only’ ramifications for him in particular must have been huge.
In retrospect, Chubbuck’s actions were bizarre: taking her life in such a public way (and insisting the show be recorded for her “reels”) strikes of narcissism and a bitter revenge. While the film is no doubt based on the true recollections of the real-life participants, the screenplay by Craig Shilowich, in an impressive writing debut, for me never quite closed that loop: why this way rather that a car and a hosepipe?
Directed by Antonio Campos, this is never an easy watch. It’s a bit like watching a car crash in ultra-slow motion, and pretty much mandates that you watch an episode of “Father Ted” afterwards to cheer yourself up! But it’s a fascinating study in mental decline, and it’s a useful reminder that it behoves all of us to pay more attention to others around us and reach out with real help if needed before the worst can happen.