Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Hello there! It’s been six weeks since my last post – Covid 19 related restriction issues sent me to a very odd place mentally and it has taken me a while to snap out of it enough to have the energy and will to keep writing these reviews. But what better way to recomense than with the history making Best Picture film from earlier in this strange year of 2020, before all the things that changed our way of thinking began?
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Women: Be the Best Version of Yourselves!
So, after much brouhaha and trolling – probably mostly from woman-hating teenage nerds who can’t get laid – Brie Larson‘s hyper-hero barrels onto our cinema screens.
Stan Lee tribute.
First off, what a Marvel-lous idea to pay tribute to Stan Lee in the Marvel production logo for this film. Michael Giacchino‘s rousing Marvel anthem leads to a simple title card: “Thanks Stan”. Poignant and touching.
Lee makes another cameo in this film. I wonder how many more of these they have in the can? Will they “do a Princess Leia” in future films and CGI in his cameos? I’m not a great fan of this, but he’s such a staple part of the show that – with his family’s permission of course – I would actually welcome having that happen in this specific case.
The Plot.
The movie opens on the Kree home world of Hala where Vers, a member of Starforce (“a race of noble warrior heroes”), is being put through her paces by her mentor Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). But she is one mixed up lady, having some exceptional powers but no memory of her past. As an example of this, when she communes with the ‘Supreme Intelligence’ (who looks different to everyone) she sees a woman (Annette Bening) who she clearly admires but she has no idea why.
The Kree are at war against the race of terrorist thugs known as the Skrulls. (Their name reminds me of a classic Mitchell and Webb Nazi SS sketch – “We have skulls on our caps…. does that mean we’re the baddies?”). After a Skrull ambush and some judicious brain-delving, Vers surfaces memories that leads her back to the Terran home world and a past that is set to redefine her future.
What’s good.
A lot. I really enjoyed this Marvel outing. With all the nay-sayers, I went in with low expectations, but the story actually built well and Brie Larson makes the role her own. It goes without saying that she looks gorgeous and fills out that costume very nicely! (The zero gravity ‘hair scene’ is spectacular). But she manages to convey with that style superhero grit with an essence of quirky humour running underneath it. In doing so she holds the whole film together.
Also spectacular were the ‘youngified’ Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg). The effect could have been ‘uncanny valley’ with knobs on, but is actually done so well I didn’t even notice. The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is great.
In the strong supporting cast Annette Bening is pure class, and a well-toned Jude Law seems to be having enormous fun. Elsewhere, Ben Mendelsohn (of “Rogue One” fame) is the leader of the Krulls and “Goose” is played by Reggie, Gonzo, Archie and Rizzo! (Flerkin hell!)
The Marvel/DC Laff-ometer.
A key characteristic of the Marvel/DC films is the humour injected (more it has to be said in Marvel than DC), and in terms of the Marvel/DC-laffometer, this film probably lies fairly in the middle of the range. It’s not the snort-fest of Ragnarok or GotG, but neither is it at the po-faced Man of Steel end. Much fun is made of the 1995 setting with gags from Arnie in “True Lies” to computer loading times being well-exploited.
There are also lots of great Marvel in-jokes, not least of which is the story behind Fury losing his eye: hilarious!
What’s not so good.
The problem I have with “Transformers” films is that there is little tension for me in seeing robots hitting ten-bells out of each other. I’ve similarly commented that many superhero movies have the same flaw that (Thanos aside, as things stand) they are pretty much indestructible and there is little threat implied. Captain Marvel however takes this to entirely different levels: the Hulk smash is a mere gnat-bite compared to what Carol Danvers can deliver; storming through planet-busting nuclear weapons and starships without a scratch. It’s so over-the-top that a showdown scene in the finale, although played for a laugh, also becomes laughable in the wrong way.
The film also ladles on female empowerment as if it was gravy in an Australian chip shop! (I bet Theresa May has the film on permanent loop in the Downing Street home cinema). Don’t get me wrong, I am a big supporter of #MeToo (and indeed #SheDo), but the film is a bit too heavy handed in its messaging in this area.
A troop of monkeys.
There are two extra scenes in the end titles (“monkeys“) and they are both corkers. The first bridges directly from “Infinity War” to “Endgame”, picking up (literally) that pager that Nick Fury was no longer able to hang onto; the second a nice sight gag featuring Goose that links the end of this film to the “monkey” at the end of Thor! Well worth waiting for!
Final Thoughts.
This was a Marvel film I really enjoyed, and which I would definitely re-watch. It’s been written and directed by ‘indie’ writing duo Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (with Geneva Robertson-Dworet also contributing to the screenplay), and very well done it is in my view. Not everyone seems to have liked it: but I did!
On April 25th, the Danvers vs Thanos match is going to be a bout that will be worth buying tickets to see!
Stan Lee tribute.
First off, what a Marvel-lous idea to pay tribute to Stan Lee in the Marvel production logo for this film. Michael Giacchino‘s rousing Marvel anthem leads to a simple title card: “Thanks Stan”. Poignant and touching.
Lee makes another cameo in this film. I wonder how many more of these they have in the can? Will they “do a Princess Leia” in future films and CGI in his cameos? I’m not a great fan of this, but he’s such a staple part of the show that – with his family’s permission of course – I would actually welcome having that happen in this specific case.
The Plot.
The movie opens on the Kree home world of Hala where Vers, a member of Starforce (“a race of noble warrior heroes”), is being put through her paces by her mentor Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). But she is one mixed up lady, having some exceptional powers but no memory of her past. As an example of this, when she communes with the ‘Supreme Intelligence’ (who looks different to everyone) she sees a woman (Annette Bening) who she clearly admires but she has no idea why.
The Kree are at war against the race of terrorist thugs known as the Skrulls. (Their name reminds me of a classic Mitchell and Webb Nazi SS sketch – “We have skulls on our caps…. does that mean we’re the baddies?”). After a Skrull ambush and some judicious brain-delving, Vers surfaces memories that leads her back to the Terran home world and a past that is set to redefine her future.
What’s good.
A lot. I really enjoyed this Marvel outing. With all the nay-sayers, I went in with low expectations, but the story actually built well and Brie Larson makes the role her own. It goes without saying that she looks gorgeous and fills out that costume very nicely! (The zero gravity ‘hair scene’ is spectacular). But she manages to convey with that style superhero grit with an essence of quirky humour running underneath it. In doing so she holds the whole film together.
Also spectacular were the ‘youngified’ Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) and Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg). The effect could have been ‘uncanny valley’ with knobs on, but is actually done so well I didn’t even notice. The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is great.
In the strong supporting cast Annette Bening is pure class, and a well-toned Jude Law seems to be having enormous fun. Elsewhere, Ben Mendelsohn (of “Rogue One” fame) is the leader of the Krulls and “Goose” is played by Reggie, Gonzo, Archie and Rizzo! (Flerkin hell!)
The Marvel/DC Laff-ometer.
A key characteristic of the Marvel/DC films is the humour injected (more it has to be said in Marvel than DC), and in terms of the Marvel/DC-laffometer, this film probably lies fairly in the middle of the range. It’s not the snort-fest of Ragnarok or GotG, but neither is it at the po-faced Man of Steel end. Much fun is made of the 1995 setting with gags from Arnie in “True Lies” to computer loading times being well-exploited.
There are also lots of great Marvel in-jokes, not least of which is the story behind Fury losing his eye: hilarious!
What’s not so good.
The problem I have with “Transformers” films is that there is little tension for me in seeing robots hitting ten-bells out of each other. I’ve similarly commented that many superhero movies have the same flaw that (Thanos aside, as things stand) they are pretty much indestructible and there is little threat implied. Captain Marvel however takes this to entirely different levels: the Hulk smash is a mere gnat-bite compared to what Carol Danvers can deliver; storming through planet-busting nuclear weapons and starships without a scratch. It’s so over-the-top that a showdown scene in the finale, although played for a laugh, also becomes laughable in the wrong way.
The film also ladles on female empowerment as if it was gravy in an Australian chip shop! (I bet Theresa May has the film on permanent loop in the Downing Street home cinema). Don’t get me wrong, I am a big supporter of #MeToo (and indeed #SheDo), but the film is a bit too heavy handed in its messaging in this area.
A troop of monkeys.
There are two extra scenes in the end titles (“monkeys“) and they are both corkers. The first bridges directly from “Infinity War” to “Endgame”, picking up (literally) that pager that Nick Fury was no longer able to hang onto; the second a nice sight gag featuring Goose that links the end of this film to the “monkey” at the end of Thor! Well worth waiting for!
Final Thoughts.
This was a Marvel film I really enjoyed, and which I would definitely re-watch. It’s been written and directed by ‘indie’ writing duo Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (with Geneva Robertson-Dworet also contributing to the screenplay), and very well done it is in my view. Not everyone seems to have liked it: but I did!
On April 25th, the Danvers vs Thanos match is going to be a bout that will be worth buying tickets to see!
Kris Karcher (10 KP) rated Nashville (1975) in Movies
Jan 11, 2018
A landmark film
Nashville is a very difficult film to pin down. It refuses to be pigeonholed into a genre. (IMDB has it listed as a comedy, Google as Drama/Political Drama, and Wikipedia labels the film a Musical Comedy-Drama. In my opinion, Nashville is all of those things and maybe some more. It would be more beneficial to talk about Nashville, not in terms of how similar it is to any other film, but instead, explore how it is unique and entirely different from almost everything that came before it. Robert Altman attempted to subvert audience expectations in ways never before seen in Hollywood. Where most films try and limit the number of main characters the audience has to follow, Altman instead chose to populate his country music narrative with over 20 different protagonists. Each of these protagonists has their own story to tell and all of these stories are only loosely connected together. This may sound familiar to contemporary audiences who have seen films like Crash, Babel, and Magnolia fresh on their minds, but to a 1975 audience, this was all but unheard of. Altman furthers this sense of chaos by constantly overlapping dialogue tracks throughout the film. This tactic forces viewers to engage more closely to what they can hear during the scenes because it’s not always obvious what you should be listening to. Sometimes that choice is even quite subjective as in most cases there is no clear plot line that stands out as primary. One of the joys of this film comes from the choice you have as a spectator to focus on whatever interests you most. To a certain extent, this film lends itself to multiple viewings that could produce slightly different results each time. Something that might have slipped your attention the first time might stand out upon repeated viewings and that has the possibility to add to the story in interesting and unique ways. In dealing with over 20 characters Altman runs the risk of underdeveloped characters and unsatisfying conclusions to their stories. Not everyone has a satisfying payoff but some characters will surprise you during the final few scenes. Henry Gibson’s Haven rises above what was previously a one-note character of a person and responds to the climax in a surprisingly moving way. All in all, Nashville is an important piece of American cinema history. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea so it’s best to temper your expectations going into a viewing, but if you can keep your eyes and ears intently listening for the full two and a half hour film you will not be disappointed in the humanity you spot in each of these stories. This is a film that rewards an invested viewing.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Risky Business (1983) in Movies
Apr 8, 2018
Solid 80's Romantic Comedy
Things get crazy for Joel Goodson (Tom Cruise) when his parents leave for the weekend and a call girl shows up at his door. A quiet weekend alone turns into one full of sex, drugs, and...pimps named Guido?
Acting: 10
Before Tom cruise commanded the screen with a number of memorable action and sci-fi films, he played the role of a young high school kid completely unsure of himself. His innocent charm is instantly likable. He's vulnerable, but not in an annoying kind of way. Amazing performance, not just from Cruise but from the supporting cast as well.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
I love when characters aren't the same people they started out as in the film. Character development can be hard to manage in film because you have such a short window of time to pull it off successfully. I respected and appreciated the development of Joel and Lana (Rebecca De Mornay). Joel goes from being a kid who can't tell if he's coming or going to a confident kid that acts older than his age. Hiding underneath his new exterior is a boy that's still scared to death as his life's stakes are now realer than ever. Lana enters the film cold and removed from her situation and leaves with a warmer heart and more of a vulnerable side. It's refreshing watching these characters mature right in front of you.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Tom Cruise sliding across the floor in just a button down and socks. That slow motion wind-filled moment where we meet Lana for the first time. The L train scene. These are just a handful of moments that define this film and make it a memorable experience. Director Paul Brickman captures these shots just right to create a lasting impression.
Conflict: 6
The full conflict of the film doesn't really present itself until you're over halfway done with the film. Up to that point Risky Business feels like more of an aimless adventure. A good time without any stakes involved.
Genre: 7
Very original romantic comedy that is unique in its premise. It has a solid realistic feel in the way the characters think and react. Joel knows he needs to stay away from Lana, yet he can't help himself in being drawn to her. If Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one of my pinnacles for rom-coms, Risky Business is certainly in the wheelhouse.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 7
Resolution: 4
Overall: 79
It's a film I will watch anytime I see it's on. While it didn't rewrite the history of cinema, Risky Business manages to hold its own as a good watch, even if the ending was a little underwhelming.
Acting: 10
Before Tom cruise commanded the screen with a number of memorable action and sci-fi films, he played the role of a young high school kid completely unsure of himself. His innocent charm is instantly likable. He's vulnerable, but not in an annoying kind of way. Amazing performance, not just from Cruise but from the supporting cast as well.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
I love when characters aren't the same people they started out as in the film. Character development can be hard to manage in film because you have such a short window of time to pull it off successfully. I respected and appreciated the development of Joel and Lana (Rebecca De Mornay). Joel goes from being a kid who can't tell if he's coming or going to a confident kid that acts older than his age. Hiding underneath his new exterior is a boy that's still scared to death as his life's stakes are now realer than ever. Lana enters the film cold and removed from her situation and leaves with a warmer heart and more of a vulnerable side. It's refreshing watching these characters mature right in front of you.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Tom Cruise sliding across the floor in just a button down and socks. That slow motion wind-filled moment where we meet Lana for the first time. The L train scene. These are just a handful of moments that define this film and make it a memorable experience. Director Paul Brickman captures these shots just right to create a lasting impression.
Conflict: 6
The full conflict of the film doesn't really present itself until you're over halfway done with the film. Up to that point Risky Business feels like more of an aimless adventure. A good time without any stakes involved.
Genre: 7
Very original romantic comedy that is unique in its premise. It has a solid realistic feel in the way the characters think and react. Joel knows he needs to stay away from Lana, yet he can't help himself in being drawn to her. If Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one of my pinnacles for rom-coms, Risky Business is certainly in the wheelhouse.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Plot: 7
Resolution: 4
Overall: 79
It's a film I will watch anytime I see it's on. While it didn't rewrite the history of cinema, Risky Business manages to hold its own as a good watch, even if the ending was a little underwhelming.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Quiet Place (2018) in Movies
Apr 11, 2018
Not a "horror" movie, but a tense, taught, suspense film
There are many things the new film A QUIET PLACE is. What it is NOT is a "horror" film (as it is being promoted). What this film is is tense, suspenseful, well written, acted & directed, and quite good.
Co-written and Directed by John Krasinski (THE OFFICE) and starring Krasinski and his real-life wife, Emily Blunt (LIVE, DIE, REPEAT, the upcoming MARY POPPINS RETURNS), A QUIET PLACE tells the story of an Earth that has been overrun by aliens who hunt humans as food. These creatures are blind and have limited olfactory senses, but what they do have is extremely good hearing, so to stay alive, you must stay quiet.
We are introduced to this world by a family of 5 that have, thus far, survived. It consists of a Mother (Blunt) and Father (Kasinski) and their 3 children, one of whom is deaf. They have learned how to live in this world and we watch them struggle to stay alive - and stay together as a family unit.
This is the Directorial debut of Kasinski and he acquits himself quite well. This film is strongly paced with a sure eye for what this film should look and feel like. His handling of the actors is strong and he is smart enough to realize that this film could wear it's welcome out, so he keeps things short and to the point.
The acting of the children are good and Krasinski is very good in his role, but it is the work of Emily Blunt that really pulls this film along. As the matriarch of the family, you can see the care and concern on her face, her futility in trying to hold things together. Someone get this actress an Oscar already! Maybe not for this film...but...she is an Oscar-caliber actress showing off her abilities.
But...it is the silence that is the differentiating factor of this cinematic experience.
Because of the nature of the premise, this film - by necessity - is (in essence) a silent film. Because of this, an interesting thing happened in the movie theater I was in. At the beginning of the film, I could hear wrappers being handled and popcorn being eaten and drinks being drunk. But...after about 10 minutes, the theater became just as silent as the screen and you were pulled into the silent world of the film.
All in all, a fantastic, unique time at the cinema. As I said, I would not classify this as a "horror" film, but rather a taught, tense, suspense film that had me jumping out of my seat on more than one occasion.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Co-written and Directed by John Krasinski (THE OFFICE) and starring Krasinski and his real-life wife, Emily Blunt (LIVE, DIE, REPEAT, the upcoming MARY POPPINS RETURNS), A QUIET PLACE tells the story of an Earth that has been overrun by aliens who hunt humans as food. These creatures are blind and have limited olfactory senses, but what they do have is extremely good hearing, so to stay alive, you must stay quiet.
We are introduced to this world by a family of 5 that have, thus far, survived. It consists of a Mother (Blunt) and Father (Kasinski) and their 3 children, one of whom is deaf. They have learned how to live in this world and we watch them struggle to stay alive - and stay together as a family unit.
This is the Directorial debut of Kasinski and he acquits himself quite well. This film is strongly paced with a sure eye for what this film should look and feel like. His handling of the actors is strong and he is smart enough to realize that this film could wear it's welcome out, so he keeps things short and to the point.
The acting of the children are good and Krasinski is very good in his role, but it is the work of Emily Blunt that really pulls this film along. As the matriarch of the family, you can see the care and concern on her face, her futility in trying to hold things together. Someone get this actress an Oscar already! Maybe not for this film...but...she is an Oscar-caliber actress showing off her abilities.
But...it is the silence that is the differentiating factor of this cinematic experience.
Because of the nature of the premise, this film - by necessity - is (in essence) a silent film. Because of this, an interesting thing happened in the movie theater I was in. At the beginning of the film, I could hear wrappers being handled and popcorn being eaten and drinks being drunk. But...after about 10 minutes, the theater became just as silent as the screen and you were pulled into the silent world of the film.
All in all, a fantastic, unique time at the cinema. As I said, I would not classify this as a "horror" film, but rather a taught, tense, suspense film that had me jumping out of my seat on more than one occasion.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Dragged Across Concrete (2019) in Movies
May 5, 2019
What a thrill ride!
So to say director S. Craig Zahler is one of my favorites working today is an understatement. I was a HUGE fan of his first two films, Bone Tomahawk and Brawl in Cell Block 99 (read my reviews on both on Smashbomb) so I was really looking forward to this one. Of course the film did not play at a cinema local to me, so I had to wait until Blu Ray to give it a watch and I was enthralled.
Two cops on suspension for using excessive force against a drug dealing hoodlum leave very different lives off the job. One is prone to violence living in a bad neighborhood desperate for better for his wife and child and the other just wants to marry the girl of his dreams and is now worried she will no longer have him.
Out of desperation, the men decide to participate in a criminal enterprise to better their own personal situations and end up inside something much bigger. The decisions they make within the context of the second act of the film will have profound repercussions throughout the remainder of their lives.The two cops do what they have to do to try and make their lives better and help their families through hard times.
I don't want to sound like a movie snob here, but after viewing the film I checked out the MANY 1 star reviews this film received on IMDb and was not surprised. I am not making fun of the modern movie going public at all. I enjoy explosions and superheroes as much as anyone; however, for some time I have strived to find the different, unusual, deeper film where its heroes don't wear spandex and everything is not just black and white. Those films have their place.
This film was kind of "Tarantino-esque" in the way the story was told, the way the characters conversed with each other and even the fact that the characters were multilayered and very interesting. There were also several stories going on simultaneously at the beginning and didn't combine until well into the film. One could argue the 2 hour and 40 minute film "dragged" (no pun intended) at times or had unnecessary scenes, but no one complained when Marge Gunderson had lunch with Mike Yanagita, so that didn't bother me here.
Both of Zahler's previous films were violent and had that one squeamish scene you could hardly believe happened as did this film.
I can safely say this movie isn't for everyone and its slow pace will turn off some modern moviegoers who expect non stop action. Having said that, I still highly recommend this movie and would love to know your opinion once watching it.
Two cops on suspension for using excessive force against a drug dealing hoodlum leave very different lives off the job. One is prone to violence living in a bad neighborhood desperate for better for his wife and child and the other just wants to marry the girl of his dreams and is now worried she will no longer have him.
Out of desperation, the men decide to participate in a criminal enterprise to better their own personal situations and end up inside something much bigger. The decisions they make within the context of the second act of the film will have profound repercussions throughout the remainder of their lives.The two cops do what they have to do to try and make their lives better and help their families through hard times.
I don't want to sound like a movie snob here, but after viewing the film I checked out the MANY 1 star reviews this film received on IMDb and was not surprised. I am not making fun of the modern movie going public at all. I enjoy explosions and superheroes as much as anyone; however, for some time I have strived to find the different, unusual, deeper film where its heroes don't wear spandex and everything is not just black and white. Those films have their place.
This film was kind of "Tarantino-esque" in the way the story was told, the way the characters conversed with each other and even the fact that the characters were multilayered and very interesting. There were also several stories going on simultaneously at the beginning and didn't combine until well into the film. One could argue the 2 hour and 40 minute film "dragged" (no pun intended) at times or had unnecessary scenes, but no one complained when Marge Gunderson had lunch with Mike Yanagita, so that didn't bother me here.
Both of Zahler's previous films were violent and had that one squeamish scene you could hardly believe happened as did this film.
I can safely say this movie isn't for everyone and its slow pace will turn off some modern moviegoers who expect non stop action. Having said that, I still highly recommend this movie and would love to know your opinion once watching it.
James Morrison (7 KP) rated The Isle (2018) in Movies
May 12, 2019
Should have left it on the isle
So i went to see this one at everyman cinema stratford upon avon where they also had a Q+A session with the two directors, alex and the woman who plays the part or the murdered victim was all their.
Now for me and the wife we feel that the film dragged on to long to the point I was falling asleep as it became that boring, i would say that if you liked the VVITCH then you may like this one but if not then its one to avoid as its the same kinda film.
As for fizz and ginger themself well lets just say they had a question possed at them during the Q+A "why did the people leave the island? Was it bacause of the highland clearances, fammine or the weather conditions?" Trying to get themself out of it they said "it was a combination of every thing" well at the end of the Q+A with me and the wife being scottish we had to give them a history lesson, the highland clearances happened in the 1600s after the battle of culloden, now if you know scotland this is the top end of the country and their "island" is not far from glasgow the bottom end of Scotland, added to this the clue highland clearances the island is in the lowlands, and adding even further after the battle of culloden the english pushed north slaughtering anyone wearing a kilt and banded the bagpipes and bonny prince charlie escaped the the closed island before going to france which was the isle of sky where people still live they would have seen that this does not match up.
On top of this the people left the island in the late 1800s, the highland clearances was 1600 so they were 200 years out of date the reason we know this is because the wifes great grand mother lived on the island.
For a film was written over a 2 year period and made on a small budget and film with in 4 weeks with trained actors this film would have been better being dumped in the loch never to be seen by the public but i guess we all need to start some where even if we open our gobs to make ourself look intelligent rather than be honest with the public and say we really dont know why they left
Now for me and the wife we feel that the film dragged on to long to the point I was falling asleep as it became that boring, i would say that if you liked the VVITCH then you may like this one but if not then its one to avoid as its the same kinda film.
As for fizz and ginger themself well lets just say they had a question possed at them during the Q+A "why did the people leave the island? Was it bacause of the highland clearances, fammine or the weather conditions?" Trying to get themself out of it they said "it was a combination of every thing" well at the end of the Q+A with me and the wife being scottish we had to give them a history lesson, the highland clearances happened in the 1600s after the battle of culloden, now if you know scotland this is the top end of the country and their "island" is not far from glasgow the bottom end of Scotland, added to this the clue highland clearances the island is in the lowlands, and adding even further after the battle of culloden the english pushed north slaughtering anyone wearing a kilt and banded the bagpipes and bonny prince charlie escaped the the closed island before going to france which was the isle of sky where people still live they would have seen that this does not match up.
On top of this the people left the island in the late 1800s, the highland clearances was 1600 so they were 200 years out of date the reason we know this is because the wifes great grand mother lived on the island.
For a film was written over a 2 year period and made on a small budget and film with in 4 weeks with trained actors this film would have been better being dumped in the loch never to be seen by the public but i guess we all need to start some where even if we open our gobs to make ourself look intelligent rather than be honest with the public and say we really dont know why they left
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Third time lucky?
The X-Men franchise is as convoluted as Spaghetti Junction. Littered with constantly changing timelines, it has become the epitome of tiring and fans are getting exasperated too. With every great film (X2, X-Men: Days of Future Past), the series has followed it with some truly awful movies (X-Men: Origins Wolverine, X-Men: Apocalypse).
To this end, Hugh Jackman has finally decided to hang up his Adamantium claws after Logan, his ninth and apparently final outing as the grizzly hero. Are we third time lucky for his solo films?
James Mangold, director of The Wolverine, returns to the director’s chair and helms an at times brutal and uncompromising film speckled with the sort of emotional heft you’d find in the saddest rom-com’s.
In the near future, a weary Logan (Hugh Jackman) cares for an ailing Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) in a hide out on the Mexican border accompanied by long-time acquaintance Caliban (Stephen Merchant). But Logan’s attempts to hide from the world and his legacy are upended when a young mutant, Laura, (Dafne Keen) arrives, being pursued by unspeakable dark forces.
In parts, Logan feels very much like a Western. The bleak, unforgiving Mexican landscape is a beautiful change from the dreary concrete jungles that blight the majority of superhero films these days and this is where Logan will either succeed or fail. It doesn’t feel like a superhero film, despite its faithfulness to the Old Man Logan comics.
Much like a metaphor for the genre itself, Logan has grown weary of the world and it is a testament to Hugh Jackman’s acting capabilities that he is able to add yet another dimension to a character that has been a cinema staple since the Millennium. Patrick Stewart is also on top form showing a vulnerable side to the world’s smartest mutant. Newcomer, Dafne Keen is also exceptional despite her limited dialogue.
Heartfelt scenes in which the oddball family share dinner with kind strangers are strikingly juxtaposed with sequences of sheer brutality. If you thought Deadpool was bloody, you haven’t seen anything yet. And for all the violence, Logan is the most poignant film in the entire X-Men canon, wearing its 15 certification proudly when it needs to, but not shying away from sections of quiet contemplation.
Negatives? Well, in spite of its gargantuan length, the ending feels a little tacked on and rushed – something a lot of modern blockbusters seem to feel is necessary at the moment and the final 30 minutes are a slight anti-climax in comparison to what preceded it, but on the whole, this final outing for Hugh Jackman proves a fitting one. Third time’s a charm!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/03/third-time-lucky-logan-review/
To this end, Hugh Jackman has finally decided to hang up his Adamantium claws after Logan, his ninth and apparently final outing as the grizzly hero. Are we third time lucky for his solo films?
James Mangold, director of The Wolverine, returns to the director’s chair and helms an at times brutal and uncompromising film speckled with the sort of emotional heft you’d find in the saddest rom-com’s.
In the near future, a weary Logan (Hugh Jackman) cares for an ailing Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) in a hide out on the Mexican border accompanied by long-time acquaintance Caliban (Stephen Merchant). But Logan’s attempts to hide from the world and his legacy are upended when a young mutant, Laura, (Dafne Keen) arrives, being pursued by unspeakable dark forces.
In parts, Logan feels very much like a Western. The bleak, unforgiving Mexican landscape is a beautiful change from the dreary concrete jungles that blight the majority of superhero films these days and this is where Logan will either succeed or fail. It doesn’t feel like a superhero film, despite its faithfulness to the Old Man Logan comics.
Much like a metaphor for the genre itself, Logan has grown weary of the world and it is a testament to Hugh Jackman’s acting capabilities that he is able to add yet another dimension to a character that has been a cinema staple since the Millennium. Patrick Stewart is also on top form showing a vulnerable side to the world’s smartest mutant. Newcomer, Dafne Keen is also exceptional despite her limited dialogue.
Heartfelt scenes in which the oddball family share dinner with kind strangers are strikingly juxtaposed with sequences of sheer brutality. If you thought Deadpool was bloody, you haven’t seen anything yet. And for all the violence, Logan is the most poignant film in the entire X-Men canon, wearing its 15 certification proudly when it needs to, but not shying away from sections of quiet contemplation.
Negatives? Well, in spite of its gargantuan length, the ending feels a little tacked on and rushed – something a lot of modern blockbusters seem to feel is necessary at the moment and the final 30 minutes are a slight anti-climax in comparison to what preceded it, but on the whole, this final outing for Hugh Jackman proves a fitting one. Third time’s a charm!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/03/third-time-lucky-logan-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Last Witch Hunter (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Enjoyable if forgettable
Can you imagine Vin Diesel as a peacekeeper in a time of witch suppression? I admit when I first heard the premise of The Last Witch Hunter I was a little sceptical of just how the Fast & Furious star would cope with such a change of role.
However, my concerns were quickly brushed aside during the first ten minutes of this unusual action adventure. But is the rest of the movie as good as its leading man?
Unfortunately, the short answer is no. Not only does Vin Diesel have to stand-off against supernatural beings, he has to take on a bland script, clichéd side characters, including a terrifically poor performance from Elijah Wood, and a plot that constantly shifts uncomfortably in tone – unable to grasp just what genre it is trying to be.
The Last Witch Hunter follows Diesel’s Kaulder as he tries to keep the peace during a time when witches live among humans in plain sight, bound by laws sworn in after a great war that ravished both sides.
He, alongside the ever-reliable Michael Caine, a wooden Elijah Wood and a lacklustre Rose Leslie fight to save the planet from the torment of a Witch Queen.
That pretty much sums up the entire plot and the dialogue doesn’t fare any better with a forced comedic edge stopping the film dead in its tracks.
Elsewhere, the characters are drawn so thinly that only Diesel makes any kind of lasting impression, though the audience is force fed a backstory so emotional, it feels like it’s been brought straight from The X Factor.
Nevertheless, The Last Witch Hunter’s succinct running time does a lot to turn the film around. Thankfully, the thin story just about stretches over the 106 minutes and the set pieces are an enjoyable romp with Diesel doing what he does best.
The special effects too are very good indeed. Considering its lesser-known nature, the production team have crafted some creepy and intriguing sets with the finale looking like it took the majority of the film’s $90million budget.
It’s just a shame that the rest of the movie falls terribly flat. What could have been an unusual and exciting trip to the cinema, ends up being another forgettable and tiresome experience.
Overall, The Last Witch Hunter is an enjoyable if entirely forgettable romp that suffers from the same problems that blight so many Hollywood blockbusters. From bland characters to poor scriptwriting and bad dialogue, only Vin Diesel and some good special effects save it from being a write-off.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/25/enjoyable-if-forgettable-the-last-witch-hunter-review/
However, my concerns were quickly brushed aside during the first ten minutes of this unusual action adventure. But is the rest of the movie as good as its leading man?
Unfortunately, the short answer is no. Not only does Vin Diesel have to stand-off against supernatural beings, he has to take on a bland script, clichéd side characters, including a terrifically poor performance from Elijah Wood, and a plot that constantly shifts uncomfortably in tone – unable to grasp just what genre it is trying to be.
The Last Witch Hunter follows Diesel’s Kaulder as he tries to keep the peace during a time when witches live among humans in plain sight, bound by laws sworn in after a great war that ravished both sides.
He, alongside the ever-reliable Michael Caine, a wooden Elijah Wood and a lacklustre Rose Leslie fight to save the planet from the torment of a Witch Queen.
That pretty much sums up the entire plot and the dialogue doesn’t fare any better with a forced comedic edge stopping the film dead in its tracks.
Elsewhere, the characters are drawn so thinly that only Diesel makes any kind of lasting impression, though the audience is force fed a backstory so emotional, it feels like it’s been brought straight from The X Factor.
Nevertheless, The Last Witch Hunter’s succinct running time does a lot to turn the film around. Thankfully, the thin story just about stretches over the 106 minutes and the set pieces are an enjoyable romp with Diesel doing what he does best.
The special effects too are very good indeed. Considering its lesser-known nature, the production team have crafted some creepy and intriguing sets with the finale looking like it took the majority of the film’s $90million budget.
It’s just a shame that the rest of the movie falls terribly flat. What could have been an unusual and exciting trip to the cinema, ends up being another forgettable and tiresome experience.
Overall, The Last Witch Hunter is an enjoyable if entirely forgettable romp that suffers from the same problems that blight so many Hollywood blockbusters. From bland characters to poor scriptwriting and bad dialogue, only Vin Diesel and some good special effects save it from being a write-off.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/25/enjoyable-if-forgettable-the-last-witch-hunter-review/
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Expendables (2010) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Action movies really don't get any better than this.
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first heard about this film I had really high expectations. Sylvester Stallone writing, directing and starring in an action film. He was trying to bring together some of the greatest stars of action films past and present, it sounded too good to be true. As the months went by I kept hearing rumours as to who was in it. Pretty much every name from action films was mentioned. Then the biggest rumour of them all, it was going to star Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger! Never gonna happen I thought. I was never so glad to be wrong. The scene they appeared in may only be a few minutes long but it was perfect.
I went to see this film the week it came out. The cinema was fairly full, and as the film started I noticed something about the audience, they were loving the movie. As the film continued it started to feel like I was seeing this in my living room with a large group of friends. Everyone was laughing, gasping and really getting into the spirit of the film. This really added something special to the film. I have not experienced this during a normal screening of a film.
The film itself follows a very basic formula, big characters, big explosions, big guns and lots of bad guys dying. But what makes this one stand out from modern action films is it doesn't try to be anything more. It is a throw back to the great action films from the 80's and 90's like Commando, Predator, Die Hard and Rambo: First Blood Part II. Films that are so over the top but so very entertaining.
The cast is an action movie fans wet dream. Action movie legends Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dolph Lundgren Gary Daniels and Mickey Rourke star alongside modern day action stars Jason Statham, Jet Li, Steve Austin, Randy Couture and Terry Crews. Add to the cast Eric Roberts, David Zayas and Charisma Carpenter and you have probably the greatest cast assembled since Ocean's Eleven was remade in 2001. The cast works well. I always believe that if the cast had a good time making a movie then it will show in their performance. They must have had the time of their lives filming this.
A film like this will never get any major awards (it did win awards for the stunt work), but then again you don't go to see this looking for award winning performances. You go to see this to escape from the reality of life and to just be entertained. I am a major action movie fan and it really doesn't get any better than this.
I went to see this film the week it came out. The cinema was fairly full, and as the film started I noticed something about the audience, they were loving the movie. As the film continued it started to feel like I was seeing this in my living room with a large group of friends. Everyone was laughing, gasping and really getting into the spirit of the film. This really added something special to the film. I have not experienced this during a normal screening of a film.
The film itself follows a very basic formula, big characters, big explosions, big guns and lots of bad guys dying. But what makes this one stand out from modern action films is it doesn't try to be anything more. It is a throw back to the great action films from the 80's and 90's like Commando, Predator, Die Hard and Rambo: First Blood Part II. Films that are so over the top but so very entertaining.
The cast is an action movie fans wet dream. Action movie legends Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dolph Lundgren Gary Daniels and Mickey Rourke star alongside modern day action stars Jason Statham, Jet Li, Steve Austin, Randy Couture and Terry Crews. Add to the cast Eric Roberts, David Zayas and Charisma Carpenter and you have probably the greatest cast assembled since Ocean's Eleven was remade in 2001. The cast works well. I always believe that if the cast had a good time making a movie then it will show in their performance. They must have had the time of their lives filming this.
A film like this will never get any major awards (it did win awards for the stunt work), but then again you don't go to see this looking for award winning performances. You go to see this to escape from the reality of life and to just be entertained. I am a major action movie fan and it really doesn't get any better than this.