Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
May 20, 2018
A Modern Classic
I have a confession to make - INCEPTION is one of my favorite Christopher Nolan films - and, perhaps, it is in my list of TOP 10 ALL TIME FAVORITE films, so this might not be a fair and impartial review of the film. To be fair to me, I did make a conscience effort whilst watching this movie to scrape away my previous preconceptions and opinions of this film and just let it wash over me in this "new light" of my blog to see what my reaction is.
My reaction: I LOVE THIS FILM!!!
I was asked how far back do you have to go before you can consider a film a "classic" and, I guess, I'd have to say 2010, for this film - to me - is a classic.
In INCEPTION, Nolan, and his co-writer brother Jonathan Nolan, go into the dreamworld with the premise that we can join in "shared dreams" to extract information from people that are locked away deep in their conscious (or in some cases unconscious) minds. This film deals with the idea of "Inception", planting an idea into someone's mind. This is, in essence, a "heist" film where our team of heroes is constantly at war with the minds they are inhabiting (since they are seen as parasites). The clock is ticking and they must get in and get out before they get lost.
Speaking of time, Nolan - once again - plays with the idea of time in this film. Once you go into a dream, 1 minute is like 1 hour and when you go into a dream of a dream, then 1 minute is like 60 hours and when you go into a dream within a dream within a dream, then...well...you get the idea.
If someone loses their way in this film, it's because they are trying to make logical sense of a dream world that defies physics - and time. My suggestion to you is to let go and let the movie take you to some fantastical places - with some fantastical imagery and plot machinations - that I enjoyed the heck out of.
Helping out this film is that it is impeccably cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb the head of this group that enters the dream realm. He is perfectly cast and Nolan, and this film, relies on his likeableness, his charm and the feeling that something just isn't quite right with him. All to very good effect. Ellen Page is strong as Ariadne, the rookie of the team that is our eyes and ears into this world. Ken Watanabe brings his typically strong game to the role of Saito - the man that gives the team the job and goes along for the ride. Nolan regular Cillian Murphy is a welcome addition as the person who they are trying to "Incept" and even small parts are filled with wonderful character actors like the late great, Pete Postlethwaite, Tom Berenger and good ol' Michael Caine.
But it is the emergence of two of the co-stars that, up until this film I thought were "fair actors but not great" that really elevates this film for me. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was always the "long haired kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN", but in this - as Cobb's right-hand man Arthur - he excels and really jumps out of the film as a screen presence. Of course, it really helps him that he has one of the best action sequences - for the most part practically shot - that I have ever scene. And, of course, there's TOM HARDY. He is a movie star and really shows it in the supporting role of Eames. This guy will win an Oscar one day, probably for a film that Nolan Directs him in.
My only quibble - and it is a QUIBBLE - is that I didn't really feel any strong chemistry between Marion Cotillard's Mal and DiCaprio's Cobb. She was supposed to be the big "love of his life" and I just didn't sense that. She was very good - and imposing - as she infiltrated Cobb's mind (which is, I think, the purpose of her character), but I could have used a little more between her and DiCaprio. But...as I say...a quibble.
All in all, a terrific - different - film. One that I am calling a "classic".
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
My reaction: I LOVE THIS FILM!!!
I was asked how far back do you have to go before you can consider a film a "classic" and, I guess, I'd have to say 2010, for this film - to me - is a classic.
In INCEPTION, Nolan, and his co-writer brother Jonathan Nolan, go into the dreamworld with the premise that we can join in "shared dreams" to extract information from people that are locked away deep in their conscious (or in some cases unconscious) minds. This film deals with the idea of "Inception", planting an idea into someone's mind. This is, in essence, a "heist" film where our team of heroes is constantly at war with the minds they are inhabiting (since they are seen as parasites). The clock is ticking and they must get in and get out before they get lost.
Speaking of time, Nolan - once again - plays with the idea of time in this film. Once you go into a dream, 1 minute is like 1 hour and when you go into a dream of a dream, then 1 minute is like 60 hours and when you go into a dream within a dream within a dream, then...well...you get the idea.
If someone loses their way in this film, it's because they are trying to make logical sense of a dream world that defies physics - and time. My suggestion to you is to let go and let the movie take you to some fantastical places - with some fantastical imagery and plot machinations - that I enjoyed the heck out of.
Helping out this film is that it is impeccably cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb the head of this group that enters the dream realm. He is perfectly cast and Nolan, and this film, relies on his likeableness, his charm and the feeling that something just isn't quite right with him. All to very good effect. Ellen Page is strong as Ariadne, the rookie of the team that is our eyes and ears into this world. Ken Watanabe brings his typically strong game to the role of Saito - the man that gives the team the job and goes along for the ride. Nolan regular Cillian Murphy is a welcome addition as the person who they are trying to "Incept" and even small parts are filled with wonderful character actors like the late great, Pete Postlethwaite, Tom Berenger and good ol' Michael Caine.
But it is the emergence of two of the co-stars that, up until this film I thought were "fair actors but not great" that really elevates this film for me. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was always the "long haired kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN", but in this - as Cobb's right-hand man Arthur - he excels and really jumps out of the film as a screen presence. Of course, it really helps him that he has one of the best action sequences - for the most part practically shot - that I have ever scene. And, of course, there's TOM HARDY. He is a movie star and really shows it in the supporting role of Eames. This guy will win an Oscar one day, probably for a film that Nolan Directs him in.
My only quibble - and it is a QUIBBLE - is that I didn't really feel any strong chemistry between Marion Cotillard's Mal and DiCaprio's Cobb. She was supposed to be the big "love of his life" and I just didn't sense that. She was very good - and imposing - as she infiltrated Cobb's mind (which is, I think, the purpose of her character), but I could have used a little more between her and DiCaprio. But...as I say...a quibble.
All in all, a terrific - different - film. One that I am calling a "classic".
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Commuter (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Liam Neeson's special set of skills return
The Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars have received over 650 votes so far and it’s proving to be the closest run awards ever. Make sure you cast your vote for the best films and performances from 2017 before March 6th.
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
John Rollins is a guy who's just trying to catch a break. He lives on a farm with his wife and two children, but his crops just won't grow. His cornfield is infested with crows and his water pump won't work. Stress and fatigue don't begin to describe what John is currently going through. He's a man of faith that's just trying to figure out how he can support his family with no income. He's pretty much lost all hope until he stumbles upon the scarecrow in his barn. After being convinced by his neighbor, he puts the scarecrow up in his cornfield. Besides, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. John wakes up to a field full of dead crows and his water pump begins working again. Everything looks to finally be turning in John's favor, but there's two sides to every coin. People that get in the way of John's crops or his family begin to turn up dead. What makes matters worse is that John finds possessions of the victims in his cornfield and he is the only person all the evidence points to. Once he realizes that the scarecrow is the root of his newfound problems and that he could wind up losing his family, John knows he has to get rid of it but he may already be too late...
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Joaquin's Performance Elevates This Film
Give Joaquin Phoenix the Oscar right now. His bravura performance as the titular character in JOKER is one for the ages. He is on the screen in every scene of this film and captivates and repulses you at the same time. This performance raises this film to another level.
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated I, Robot (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Tales of a dark and foreboding future where technology has run amuck have been cautioning viewers ever since Orwell made the phrase “Big Brother” a household expression. Other films such as ?”, “Westworld”, “Blade Runner” and “The Terminator” often show a dark and dangerous future where dependence upon technology created to serve mankind has lead to its eventual downfall.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Gunman (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have an action film on deck for you and ‘no’ it doesn’t star Matt Damon or Jason Statham. This latest film ‘The Gunman’ stars none other than Sean Penn?! Yes, Sean Penn has decided to step into the action genre in his latest film.
Starring Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, Jasmine Trinca, Ray Winstone, Peter Franzén, Mark Rylance, and based upon the 1981 book ‘The Prone Gunman’ by Jean-Patrick Manchette
‘The Gunman’ is set in the chaos that is modern Africa where civil unrest and war are day-to-day occurrences and western countries and multi-national conglomerates fight for control of the continent’s vital resources. Within this backdrop we find the character of Jim “Twink” Terrier (Penn). A corporate mercenary AKA security contractor on his last ‘assignment’ forced to leave
behind the woman he loves after going into hiding once his final assignment is complete. Now, years later after he has returned in secret to Africa he is forced go on the hunt again after nearly being killed and confront his former boss Felix (Bardem) who may or may not hold the key to finding those responsible. As in the world of espionage however, no one can be trusted. With corporate interests, international law enforcement, and his deteriorating health Terrier is racing against the clock to ensure that the world knows the whole story and perhaps find his long lost love before it’s too late.
Penn is obviously known for his dramatic roles. To say he is ‘legendary’ is pretty accurate.
After seeing this movie, I think it’s safe to say it’s likely we could see him in more action movies. The movie was a bit rough around the edges and perhaps 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. I felt like Bardem’s presence in the film was ‘wasted’. His character was quiet, spoke very little, and when they did give the character significant time in front of the camera he was drunk for most of it. Bardem has become legendary in his own right and I was hoping for a lot more for his character. The movie was NOT terrible though. One thing that impressed me was the fact that the filmmakers and the writers had the ‘guts’ to include mention of the type of thing that’s going on in Africa right now with corporations fighting for the continents resources and using the civil unrest to their advantage as part of the storyline.
All in all, I’d give the film 3 out of 5 stars. Catch the matinee or order it online. It’s not much when you compare it to something from the ‘Bourne’ or ‘Bond’ franchises. What you see in ‘The Gunman’ is the kind of action film that’s not outside the realm of possibility in real life.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ this is ‘The CameraMan’ saying thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies.
Second Review by Jennifer Fiduccia
The Gunman, stars Sean Penn as James Terrier, Javier Bardem as Felix, Idris Elba as Barnes, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox and Jasmine Trinca as Annie.
The movie starts out by showing the men all working together as guards for a humanitarian effort in Congo but we are quickly led to believe that they might also be ‘up to something’
Annie is Jims’ fiancé, but it is overly obvious that Felix is jealous and wishes she were his.
Our beliefs become justified when we see the group of guys get orders to assassinate the Minister of Mining, and its a sort of blind draw as to who has to do the actual shooting. Whoever gets picked must then leave the country. It is revealed that that is how Felix wants it to be.
Terrier draws the short straw so to speak, and must carry out the assassination, and then flee the country.
The movie then skips ahead to 8 years later, and sees Jim once again helping a humanitarian effort in Africa, digging wells.
As he works, his group is suddenly attacked by a group of mercenaries, and Jim manages to fight them off and kill them.
He then begins to hunt down his old team mates in an attempt to try and figure out who tried to kill him and why.
The action in the movie is good, and fast paced, the stunts were well done. None of the stunts seemed ‘unbelievable’ given the circumstances they were put in.
The relationships between the characters could have been better fleshed out, and I was confused most of the way through the movie as to who was after Jim and why, but I guess that was intended in the plot.
Overall, if you are looking for a decent action film with a bunch of shooting and car chases, this will fit the bill.
I’d give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, specifically in the category of ‘action films’.
Starring Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, Jasmine Trinca, Ray Winstone, Peter Franzén, Mark Rylance, and based upon the 1981 book ‘The Prone Gunman’ by Jean-Patrick Manchette
‘The Gunman’ is set in the chaos that is modern Africa where civil unrest and war are day-to-day occurrences and western countries and multi-national conglomerates fight for control of the continent’s vital resources. Within this backdrop we find the character of Jim “Twink” Terrier (Penn). A corporate mercenary AKA security contractor on his last ‘assignment’ forced to leave
behind the woman he loves after going into hiding once his final assignment is complete. Now, years later after he has returned in secret to Africa he is forced go on the hunt again after nearly being killed and confront his former boss Felix (Bardem) who may or may not hold the key to finding those responsible. As in the world of espionage however, no one can be trusted. With corporate interests, international law enforcement, and his deteriorating health Terrier is racing against the clock to ensure that the world knows the whole story and perhaps find his long lost love before it’s too late.
Penn is obviously known for his dramatic roles. To say he is ‘legendary’ is pretty accurate.
After seeing this movie, I think it’s safe to say it’s likely we could see him in more action movies. The movie was a bit rough around the edges and perhaps 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. I felt like Bardem’s presence in the film was ‘wasted’. His character was quiet, spoke very little, and when they did give the character significant time in front of the camera he was drunk for most of it. Bardem has become legendary in his own right and I was hoping for a lot more for his character. The movie was NOT terrible though. One thing that impressed me was the fact that the filmmakers and the writers had the ‘guts’ to include mention of the type of thing that’s going on in Africa right now with corporations fighting for the continents resources and using the civil unrest to their advantage as part of the storyline.
All in all, I’d give the film 3 out of 5 stars. Catch the matinee or order it online. It’s not much when you compare it to something from the ‘Bourne’ or ‘Bond’ franchises. What you see in ‘The Gunman’ is the kind of action film that’s not outside the realm of possibility in real life.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ this is ‘The CameraMan’ saying thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies.
Second Review by Jennifer Fiduccia
The Gunman, stars Sean Penn as James Terrier, Javier Bardem as Felix, Idris Elba as Barnes, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox and Jasmine Trinca as Annie.
The movie starts out by showing the men all working together as guards for a humanitarian effort in Congo but we are quickly led to believe that they might also be ‘up to something’
Annie is Jims’ fiancé, but it is overly obvious that Felix is jealous and wishes she were his.
Our beliefs become justified when we see the group of guys get orders to assassinate the Minister of Mining, and its a sort of blind draw as to who has to do the actual shooting. Whoever gets picked must then leave the country. It is revealed that that is how Felix wants it to be.
Terrier draws the short straw so to speak, and must carry out the assassination, and then flee the country.
The movie then skips ahead to 8 years later, and sees Jim once again helping a humanitarian effort in Africa, digging wells.
As he works, his group is suddenly attacked by a group of mercenaries, and Jim manages to fight them off and kill them.
He then begins to hunt down his old team mates in an attempt to try and figure out who tried to kill him and why.
The action in the movie is good, and fast paced, the stunts were well done. None of the stunts seemed ‘unbelievable’ given the circumstances they were put in.
The relationships between the characters could have been better fleshed out, and I was confused most of the way through the movie as to who was after Jim and why, but I guess that was intended in the plot.
Overall, if you are looking for a decent action film with a bunch of shooting and car chases, this will fit the bill.
I’d give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, specifically in the category of ‘action films’.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Assistant (2020) in Movies
May 24, 2020
Julia Garner's performance (1 more)
The tension that manages to be created through a portrayal of the mundane
The movie seems to have a lot of haters on IMDB (a rating at the time of writing of 5.9)... but I refuse to follow "the pack" on this one... I thought it was great. It manages to make the mundane incredibly tense. This is this first (semi-)fictional feature from documentary-maker Kitty Green.... and in my book she does a knock-out job.
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
We first meet Jane (Julia Garner) at 'God-knows-what-o-clock' in the morning as she arrives at her workplace - a New York film-production company. First to arrive every morning, she turns on the lights, turns on the screens, makes the pot of coffee and cleans off stains from her boss's couch. The stain isn't coffee. A lost gold bracelet is recovered.
For we are in a truly toxic working environment here. 'The boss' - clearly modelled on Harvey Weinstein - is a bullying tyrant who can reduce Jane and her two male assistants (Jon Orsini and Noah Robbins) to quivering wrecks. "WHAT THE F*** DID YOU SAY TO HER" barks the boss down the phone at Jane, after she has had a perfectly reasonable phone conversation with the estranged Mrs Boss.
The toxicity is pervasive though throughout Miram..., sorry...., 'the company'. Jane is almost invisible to her other co-workers who don't give her eye-contact even when she's talking to them and barely register her presence when sharing a lift.
But bullying and workplace toxicity is just part of this story. A steady stream of starlets arrive in the office, like meat deliveries to a butcher. In a chilling sequence, the photocopier churns out photos of beautiful actresses.... a paper-based equivalent of swiping-left or -right in the selection process. None of the "if you... I will" discussions are shown, but they don't need to be: the inference is clear.
Jane is smart, slim and pretty... but not in an obvious 'Hollywood way'. "You'll be OK..." says a co-worker "you're not his type".
But someone who distinctly is "his type" is Sienna (Kristine Froseth), a "very very young" aspiring waitress-come-actress from Boise, who suddenly and unexpectedly arrives as a "new assistant"... to be promptly put up in a swanky hotel room. It's time to act... and Jane approaches the company HR manager (Matthew Macfadyen)....
An old Spielberg trick is to increase tension by keeping the "monster" hidden from view: cue the tanker driver from "Duel" and (for most of the film) the shark from "Jaws". Here, the boss is felt only as a malevolent force and never seen on screen. It's an approach that works brilliantly, focusing the emotion on the effect he has on those flamed.
There is also recognition that these powerful people are also hugely intelligent and manipulative. Seeing that Jane is a valuable asset, the public berating is sometimes followed up with a private email apology.... dripping a few words of encouragement and praise like a few drops of Methadone to a drug-addict.
This is an excellent movie and thoughtfully and elegantly directed. Following a normal day in Jane's work life.... albeit a day where perhaps the penny finally drops... is immersive and engaging. And at only 88 minutes long, the movie never outstays its welcome.
The performances are first rate. Julia Garner is magnificent, and in a year where the Oscars will be "interesting", here's a good candidate for Best Actress I would suggest if not Best Picture. Garner's an actress I'm unfamiliar with: the only one of her previous flicks I've seen was Sin City 2.
Also oily and impressive is Matthew Macfadyen as the HR manager. There's also a sparse but well-used score by Tamar-kali.
The one area I found poor was in the sound design. It's clearly filmed in an office environment, rather than on a sound stage, and unfortunately the combination of the acoustics and the New York accents makes some of the dialogue really difficult to hear. An example is a discussion between two co-workers in an office kitchen, which was completely indecipherable for me.
Should I watch this? In my view, definitely, yes. It's chilling and an insight into the terrible ordeal that many professional women in the film industry, and other industries, have had to put up with before the "Me Too" lid was blown off (and many probably still do). The most telling line in the film? At the end of the "Thanks" in the end-titles: "All those who shared their experiences".
(See the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/05/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-assistant-2020/ . Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Monster Calls (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I’ll. Be. Right. Here.”
The worst thing about this movie is its title. The second worst thing about this movie is its trailer. Both will either a) put people off seeing it (it succeeded in that with my wife for example) or b) make people conclude it is a ‘nice holiday film to take the kids to’, which is also an horrendous mistake!
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated V for Vendetta (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
On a dark and silent night, a young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman), treads carefully through the streets of London unaware of the direction her life is about to take. As an attractive young lady, sneaking out of her home after curfew is filled with peril, especially when she is confronted by a gang of local thugs who happen to work for the government. Despite her protests, the men set up Evey only to be confronted by a masked figure.
The masked figure quickly dispatches the assailants and offers to escort Evey to safety. Despite being scared, Evey does accompany the figure to a rooftop where she is treated to a spectacular explosion set to music.
Thus begins V for Vendetta a film that mixes “The Phantom of the Opera” “Beauty and the Beast” and ?” to create a gothic love story and biting social commentary about the dangers of governmental control and censorship in a society gone awry.
In London of the near future, it is learned that a series of terrorist attacks have left thousands dead which resulted in stricter governmental controls and intrusions into privacy and lifestyles. Those who did not conform nor meet expectations often vanished never to be heard from again. Such was the case of Evey’s parents who decided to protest governmental policies and soon found themselves beaten and whisked away in the night.
Behind all of the oppression is a man named Adam Sutler (John Hurt), a monomaniacal leader who rules with an iron fist and an extreme agenda that he has manipulated to make himself and unopposed ruler of the nation.
While most of the population lives in fear of Sutler and his men, there is one who does not, a mysterious masked figure named V (Hugo Weaving), who dons a Guy Fawkes mask in tribute to the man who centuries ago attempted to destroy Parliament. When V is able to temporarily gain control of the television network for the government, he is able to broadcast his message to the people that the time has come to take back their lives and society and stop living in fear. Towards this end, V pledges to the masses that he will destroy Parliament in 1 year and that the people should gather to watch the destruction unfold.
This bold proclamation causes Sutler to stop at nothing to capture V and he tasks his Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea), to locate V. Since Evey worked at the television station and was observed helping V on a security monitor, Finch decides to locate Evey and force her to reveal the locale of the mysterious vigilante.
This task proves difficult as V has taken Evey into his protection and forces her to live in his luxurious yet secluded home in order to avoid the police forces.
It is during this time that Evey learns that V is a study in contrast. On one hand he is a very sophisticated person with a taste for the arts, culture, and a desire to see people free to live their lives as they desire.
During this time V also kills top members of the political party and with the discovery of each new victim, he becomes an even bigger target of a very irate Sutler.
All of which culminates in a race against the clock for V to complete his plan and exact his revenge for past wrongdoings done to him which propels the film to its climatic finale.
While the film is an interesting and at times enjoyable film it is hampered in some ways by a marketing program where early trailers showed the film to be an action filled romp. The truth is there is about 15-20 minutes of action in the films nearly 2hr and 10 minute run time which allows the majority of the film to be spent on the interaction between V and Evey.
While this is interesting and does bring in elements of “Phantom” and “Beauty” as I mentioned earlier, it is at the sacrifice of what I think are important factors. For example we learn a bit about why V is on his vendetta but serious questions from that are not answered. We do not learn the full what, where and why, on his situation. I am trying hard to avoid spoilers here so suffice it to say there are some very important questions about what was done to him, how he survived and so on that need to be answered but are not.
The action sequences though few and far between are well staged and Weaving and Portman have a great chemistry with one another and do make interesting and compelling characters.
The main strength of the film is the message that people need to be aware of what is going on around them and not be so willing to accept everything they are told at face value. There is a real sense of counter-culture with the film as the prevalent theme of question and if needed defy authority permeates the film.
The script written by the Wachowski brothers of The Matrix trilogy fame has chosen to tone down the gimmicky of bullet time effects and instead focus on a character driven drama with a message and it is one that resounds loudly and clearly.
The masked figure quickly dispatches the assailants and offers to escort Evey to safety. Despite being scared, Evey does accompany the figure to a rooftop where she is treated to a spectacular explosion set to music.
Thus begins V for Vendetta a film that mixes “The Phantom of the Opera” “Beauty and the Beast” and ?” to create a gothic love story and biting social commentary about the dangers of governmental control and censorship in a society gone awry.
In London of the near future, it is learned that a series of terrorist attacks have left thousands dead which resulted in stricter governmental controls and intrusions into privacy and lifestyles. Those who did not conform nor meet expectations often vanished never to be heard from again. Such was the case of Evey’s parents who decided to protest governmental policies and soon found themselves beaten and whisked away in the night.
Behind all of the oppression is a man named Adam Sutler (John Hurt), a monomaniacal leader who rules with an iron fist and an extreme agenda that he has manipulated to make himself and unopposed ruler of the nation.
While most of the population lives in fear of Sutler and his men, there is one who does not, a mysterious masked figure named V (Hugo Weaving), who dons a Guy Fawkes mask in tribute to the man who centuries ago attempted to destroy Parliament. When V is able to temporarily gain control of the television network for the government, he is able to broadcast his message to the people that the time has come to take back their lives and society and stop living in fear. Towards this end, V pledges to the masses that he will destroy Parliament in 1 year and that the people should gather to watch the destruction unfold.
This bold proclamation causes Sutler to stop at nothing to capture V and he tasks his Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea), to locate V. Since Evey worked at the television station and was observed helping V on a security monitor, Finch decides to locate Evey and force her to reveal the locale of the mysterious vigilante.
This task proves difficult as V has taken Evey into his protection and forces her to live in his luxurious yet secluded home in order to avoid the police forces.
It is during this time that Evey learns that V is a study in contrast. On one hand he is a very sophisticated person with a taste for the arts, culture, and a desire to see people free to live their lives as they desire.
During this time V also kills top members of the political party and with the discovery of each new victim, he becomes an even bigger target of a very irate Sutler.
All of which culminates in a race against the clock for V to complete his plan and exact his revenge for past wrongdoings done to him which propels the film to its climatic finale.
While the film is an interesting and at times enjoyable film it is hampered in some ways by a marketing program where early trailers showed the film to be an action filled romp. The truth is there is about 15-20 minutes of action in the films nearly 2hr and 10 minute run time which allows the majority of the film to be spent on the interaction between V and Evey.
While this is interesting and does bring in elements of “Phantom” and “Beauty” as I mentioned earlier, it is at the sacrifice of what I think are important factors. For example we learn a bit about why V is on his vendetta but serious questions from that are not answered. We do not learn the full what, where and why, on his situation. I am trying hard to avoid spoilers here so suffice it to say there are some very important questions about what was done to him, how he survived and so on that need to be answered but are not.
The action sequences though few and far between are well staged and Weaving and Portman have a great chemistry with one another and do make interesting and compelling characters.
The main strength of the film is the message that people need to be aware of what is going on around them and not be so willing to accept everything they are told at face value. There is a real sense of counter-culture with the film as the prevalent theme of question and if needed defy authority permeates the film.
The script written by the Wachowski brothers of The Matrix trilogy fame has chosen to tone down the gimmicky of bullet time effects and instead focus on a character driven drama with a message and it is one that resounds loudly and clearly.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hmm… must have splattered a lot”.
Maddy at Maddy Loves Her Classic Films is hosting The Alfred Hitchcockblogathon. A fine idea, celebrating the life and works of the “Master of Suspense”. My contribution comes from his 1954 masterpiece “Rear Window” starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.
rw-poster
In one pan around his small apartment, and without a word of dialogue required, Hitchcock deftly fills in all the back-story you need: Stewart plays ace photo-journalist L.B. Jefferies, laid up from jetting the world to worn-torn regions by a broken leg in a full-cast with only his courtyard view to entertain him. In sweltering summer temperatures all the apartments are open to the elements, so he can be well entertained by the menagerie before him: “Miss Torso”, the scantily-clad and frequently showering ballerina; a sculptress with an eye towards Henry Moore; a struggling composer (who has his clock wound by someone very familiar!); a newly-wedded bride threatening to wear out the groom; a salesman and his bed-ridden wife; a dog-loving and balcony-sleeping couple; and “Miss Lonelyhearts” – a hard-drinking spinster forced to create imaginary male dinner-guests.
Stewart plays his usual ‘Mr Ordinary’ watching perfectly ordinary goings on in a perfectly ordinary apartment block.
Or not. Jefferies is drawn to some odd-events in the apartment of the salesman (Raymond Burr, still 13 years before his career-defining role in TV’s “Ironside”). His rampant suspicions infect not only his cranky middle-aged physiotherapist Stella (Thelma Ritter) but also his perfect (“too perfect”) girlfriend, the fashion expert Lisa (Grace Kelly). Of course his police friend Doyle (Wendell Corey) is having none of it… there is no evidence of any crime being committed. And the “murdered” wife has been seen being put on a train by her husband, and is sending him letters from the countryside.
Is Jefferies just going stir-crazy? Or is there really something to it?
The set for this film is masterly. Although depicting a genuine location in New York’s Greenwich village the huge set was constructed on the Paramount lot in Hollywood, and you can just imagine the army of carpenters and artists building the multi-layered structure.
It’s one of the stars of the film, allowing for a wealth of detail to be populated: in the apartments; in the street behind; even in the cafe over the other side of the street. And it’s this detail that really makes what could be a highly static film come alive. There are a half dozen films-within-the-film going on at once, with Stewart’s character – and you as the fellow-voyeur – having a multi-pass to watch them all simultaneously.
And watch he does. As what could be perceived as a seriously pervy character – something he is called out on by Stella – Jeffries gets to see an eyeful in particular of the shapely and scantily-clad ballerina (Georgine Darcy, agent-less and only paid $350 for the role!). These scenes must have been deemed quite risque for the year of release.
Where the film rather falters is in the bickering romance between Stewart and Kelly. As a hot-blooded man, I will declare that even today Kelly’s first dream-like appearance (with Vaseline lightly coating the lens) is breathtaking. She’s just the ‘girl-next-door’: if you live next to a palace that is! And yet (with Kelly 21 years Stewart’s junior) she’s just “too perfect” for L.B. , who feels (against her protestations) that she’s ‘too girly’ to hack the life of a war photographer on the road. The mysogeny, common for the day, is gasp-making: “If a girl’s pretty enough, she just has to ‘be'” intones Stewart, to no howls of protest or throwing of saucepans! In fact Kelly is greatly encouraged: “Preview of coming attractions” purrs Kelly, flaunting what she has around the apartment in a negligee.
These scenes though are rather overlong and somewhat get in the way of the murder mystery plot-line. Things really start to warm up when a death occurs, to piercing screams in the night: “Which one of you did it?” shouts a woman to the neighbourhood, as everything – momentarily – stops. “WHICH ONE OF YOU DID IT?”. Given your emotional involvement in the ongoing voyeurism, it’s hard as a viewer not to feel discomforted…. (“well, it wasn’t me”…. shifts uneasily in the seat).
From then on, Hitchcock proceeds to pile on suspenseful jolt after jolt, with first Lisa and then L.B. placed in harms way. While the perpetrator may seem clueless and incompetent, as most murderers of passion probably are, the denouement is satisfying, with a great trial use of green-screen ‘falling’ that would be perfected by Hitchcock for “Vertigo” four years later.
What’s curious for such as classic is that there are a number of fluffed lines in the piece: with two notable ones by Stewart and Kelly. Hitchcock was the master of long and uninterrupted takes, but did he not believe in re-shooting scenes when such errors occurred? Most odd.
Although tighter and more claustrophobic that some of his better known films, this is a firm favourite of mine. If you’ve never seen it, its well worth you checking out.