Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Memento (2000) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018
Heady Trip
Christopher Nolan first burst onto the scene (for me) with MEMENTO, a 2000 film about a man with a rare condition - he cannot store any short term memories - and is looking for the man that murdered his wife and hit him on the head, thus causing this condition. The twist of the film - and the "trick" that makes this film work -is that it is told backwards (the last scene is first, the 2nd to last scene is 2nd...the first scene is last) so we, the audience, have no memory of what happened just before this scene and, thus, are suffering from the same inability to access what has happened just before as the main character.
This "trick" works very well and holds the film together, we are peeling apart the onion (or, more appropriately, we are putting the peels back on the onion) as the film progresses, gaining greater knowledge as we go along and, with each new piece of "old" information, we gain a new - and in most cases different - view of the scene that we just saw, keeping the audience off-balance for the entire film.
Nolan shows a sure-handedness in his direction of this film. It is clear he had a vision that he wanted to put on the screen and with the screenplay written by Nolan and his long-time collaborator, his brother Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan has a canvas to paint his off-kilter picture and play with the themes of time and memory - themes he would come back to over again.
As the man with the memory loss, Leonard, Guy Pearce solidified himself for me (at the time) as a fine actor that is worth watching (this, afterall, was just a few years after LA CONFIDENTIAL). His Leonard is earnest and straightforward and while he does have a "tick" to show that his memory is erasing (to clue us, the audience in), he marches (backward) through this film strongly.
Aiding Pearce is veteran character actor Joe Pantoliano as Teddy - a cop who is helping Leonard find his wife's killer (or is he?). "Joey Pants" (as he is known) is perfect for this type of ambiguous character, never really trusting him, but trusting him "just enough". Also jumping in is Trinity, herself, Carrie-Ann Moss - an actress that I thought was going to build on this (and the Matrix) and become quite the star. It didn't quite work out.
I enjoyed this mystery and was thinking about how well it works if you ran the scenes in chronological order - upon reflection, I realized that if you did that, holes get punched into things pretty quickly. So, don't do that, but do rent or stream or pull the old DVD of MEMENTO off your bookshelves, it is worth your time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This "trick" works very well and holds the film together, we are peeling apart the onion (or, more appropriately, we are putting the peels back on the onion) as the film progresses, gaining greater knowledge as we go along and, with each new piece of "old" information, we gain a new - and in most cases different - view of the scene that we just saw, keeping the audience off-balance for the entire film.
Nolan shows a sure-handedness in his direction of this film. It is clear he had a vision that he wanted to put on the screen and with the screenplay written by Nolan and his long-time collaborator, his brother Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan has a canvas to paint his off-kilter picture and play with the themes of time and memory - themes he would come back to over again.
As the man with the memory loss, Leonard, Guy Pearce solidified himself for me (at the time) as a fine actor that is worth watching (this, afterall, was just a few years after LA CONFIDENTIAL). His Leonard is earnest and straightforward and while he does have a "tick" to show that his memory is erasing (to clue us, the audience in), he marches (backward) through this film strongly.
Aiding Pearce is veteran character actor Joe Pantoliano as Teddy - a cop who is helping Leonard find his wife's killer (or is he?). "Joey Pants" (as he is known) is perfect for this type of ambiguous character, never really trusting him, but trusting him "just enough". Also jumping in is Trinity, herself, Carrie-Ann Moss - an actress that I thought was going to build on this (and the Matrix) and become quite the star. It didn't quite work out.
I enjoyed this mystery and was thinking about how well it works if you ran the scenes in chronological order - upon reflection, I realized that if you did that, holes get punched into things pretty quickly. So, don't do that, but do rent or stream or pull the old DVD of MEMENTO off your bookshelves, it is worth your time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Spiral (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Mason isn't exactly your everyday joe. He's an artist. A sketcher and a painter, but he's also incredibly quiet and tends to keep to himself. He has an office job where he tries to sell car insurance, but he doesn't exactly fit in with others. His only friend(if that's what you want to call him) is Berkeley, the boss. Berkeley comes off like he cares about Mason, but his compassion is overshadowed by the fact that he's a prick. Things start looking up for Mason as he meets Amber. After seeing Mason's sketches and getting to know him a little better, she decides she wants him to paint her. Mason's...odd side starts to reveal itself as he won't let Amber see his sketches. "There are rules," he says, "You can't see it until it's done." As Amber gets closer to Mason, what can he be hiding? Why is he such an "enigma," as Amber put it? Why does he keep having disturbing dreams about another woman?
Where do I start? I actually really liked this. I was expecting to as Adam Green and Joel David Moore were both involved with Hatchet, which is a guilty pleasure of mine. While Hatchet is half comedy and half gorefest, Spiral is more of a dramatic thriller that builds towards the ending. Spiral, while being low budget, is shot in superb fashion. The way its shot is actually its charm. I love the way the camera gets shaky during the scenes where Mason seems like he's going to lose it or when he finally does. Joel David Moore is also in top form here. His talent truly shines in this role. Everything from his body language to the way he chomps his teeth when he gets nervous, he sucks you in. You wind up feeling sorry for Mason even though you know he's twisted in some way. Witnessing his character unveil how dark really is is just amazing. The other actor I was really impressed with was Zachary Levi. I wound up becoming a fan of his with Chuck, but I've never seen him like this. He's basically a prick with a heart(even though that side of him is really only shown to Mason). While his role is a little small, he's still able to steal a few scenes...especially in the last half of the film. The other element that really adds to the film is the jazz music used. It fits perfectly with Mason's personality. Jazz music accentuates Mason's insanity that nothing else could. I really have nothing bad to say about the film.
This may surprise a few people, but Spiral is actually quite enjoyable. The acting is top notch and it's written incredibly well. For a movie that went straight to DVD, it's quite surprising how good it actually is. Even if you hated Hatchet, you should give Spiral a chance as it's a completely different kind of film.
Where do I start? I actually really liked this. I was expecting to as Adam Green and Joel David Moore were both involved with Hatchet, which is a guilty pleasure of mine. While Hatchet is half comedy and half gorefest, Spiral is more of a dramatic thriller that builds towards the ending. Spiral, while being low budget, is shot in superb fashion. The way its shot is actually its charm. I love the way the camera gets shaky during the scenes where Mason seems like he's going to lose it or when he finally does. Joel David Moore is also in top form here. His talent truly shines in this role. Everything from his body language to the way he chomps his teeth when he gets nervous, he sucks you in. You wind up feeling sorry for Mason even though you know he's twisted in some way. Witnessing his character unveil how dark really is is just amazing. The other actor I was really impressed with was Zachary Levi. I wound up becoming a fan of his with Chuck, but I've never seen him like this. He's basically a prick with a heart(even though that side of him is really only shown to Mason). While his role is a little small, he's still able to steal a few scenes...especially in the last half of the film. The other element that really adds to the film is the jazz music used. It fits perfectly with Mason's personality. Jazz music accentuates Mason's insanity that nothing else could. I really have nothing bad to say about the film.
This may surprise a few people, but Spiral is actually quite enjoyable. The acting is top notch and it's written incredibly well. For a movie that went straight to DVD, it's quite surprising how good it actually is. Even if you hated Hatchet, you should give Spiral a chance as it's a completely different kind of film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Internship (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In The Internship, Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson play Billy and Nick, two men in a profession that is sorely outdated. They are watch salesmen in a world where more people use their cell phones as time pieces than hunks of metal/plastic on their wrists. When their company shuts down because of this, Billy and Nick suddenly realize they don’t have any real skills, other than being excellent salesmen. Nick accepts a job working for his sister’s tatted-up boyfriend in a mattress store, while Billy is recovering from being unceremoniously dumped by his girlfriend after their house goes into foreclosure. So in a desperate bid to find jobs online, Billy stumbles across an unlikely possibility for the two of them: an internship at Google.
The movie plays out the way any other buddy comedy might. They somehow land the gig, fight adversity, teach a few life lessons along the way, and have the tough defining moments for each character. However, despite this formulaic plot, the movie was very funny and entertaining. From the smarmy British intern who spends the movie antagonizing the 40-something duo, to the two’s intern team, there is a great deal of comedy in the movie.
Vaughn and Wilson should be the most entertaining and funny in the movie, but you have to give credit to these two veterans. They really did allow their supporting cast to shine. Josh Brener, Dylan O’Brien, Tobit Raphael and Tiya Sircar all have hilarious laugh-out-loud scenes as Billy and Nick’s intern team. Josh Gad and Aasif Mandvi also steal the scenes they are in during the course of the movie.
Throw in legitimate tech jargon, real world technology, and the fact that this was actually filmed on location at the Google campus, and you have a pretty great movie. The only issue I had with the film was they did not play too much into the intern team’s story too much. For example, there was a nice wrap up for Sircar’s character that didn’t make sense. They talked about her issue some in the movie, but the resolution for her character was just never built up to, it kind of just happened and seemed out of place. But, this could be because I am a guy and don’t pick up on some of those things. My friend that saw the movie with me said I was crazy.
Overall, this movie exceeded my expectations. I came into expecting Fox to be grabbing at the success of Wedding Crashers. But in reality, this movie does well in standing on its. Coming in at one hour fifty-nine minutes, it is a bit long compared to today’s comedy standards, but you will never notice it. I know it kept our theater laughing the whole time. Definitely worth the watch. On my “would I buy it” scale (which has three levels No, DVD and Blu Ray), it is definitely worth the Blu Ray.
The movie plays out the way any other buddy comedy might. They somehow land the gig, fight adversity, teach a few life lessons along the way, and have the tough defining moments for each character. However, despite this formulaic plot, the movie was very funny and entertaining. From the smarmy British intern who spends the movie antagonizing the 40-something duo, to the two’s intern team, there is a great deal of comedy in the movie.
Vaughn and Wilson should be the most entertaining and funny in the movie, but you have to give credit to these two veterans. They really did allow their supporting cast to shine. Josh Brener, Dylan O’Brien, Tobit Raphael and Tiya Sircar all have hilarious laugh-out-loud scenes as Billy and Nick’s intern team. Josh Gad and Aasif Mandvi also steal the scenes they are in during the course of the movie.
Throw in legitimate tech jargon, real world technology, and the fact that this was actually filmed on location at the Google campus, and you have a pretty great movie. The only issue I had with the film was they did not play too much into the intern team’s story too much. For example, there was a nice wrap up for Sircar’s character that didn’t make sense. They talked about her issue some in the movie, but the resolution for her character was just never built up to, it kind of just happened and seemed out of place. But, this could be because I am a guy and don’t pick up on some of those things. My friend that saw the movie with me said I was crazy.
Overall, this movie exceeded my expectations. I came into expecting Fox to be grabbing at the success of Wedding Crashers. But in reality, this movie does well in standing on its. Coming in at one hour fifty-nine minutes, it is a bit long compared to today’s comedy standards, but you will never notice it. I know it kept our theater laughing the whole time. Definitely worth the watch. On my “would I buy it” scale (which has three levels No, DVD and Blu Ray), it is definitely worth the Blu Ray.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated This is 40 (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The last time we saw Pete and Debbie in the movie “Knocked Up”, they were just reconciling after a short separation. Pete found Debbie too controlling and regularly escaped the house leading Debbie to believe he was having an affair when really he was in a fantasy baseball draft. Five years later, Pete is no longer a band promoter but trying to keep his own record label afloat, while Debbie owns and manages a clothing boutique.
To the casual observer, Pete and Debbie, played with great chemistry by Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann, live an idyllic life with a nice house, two daughters and promising businesses. But a closer look finds Pete would rather play Scrabble on his iPad while on the toilet than spend time playing with his daughters. Most would never guess Debbie is a stress smoker since she goes to great lengths to hide her habit. Stressing over turning 40 isn’t helping her quit and neither is trying to figure out which of her employees is stealing from her. Is it the sexpot Desi, played easily by Megan Fox, or is it the strange Jodi, played with eerie weirdness by Charlyne Yi? As for Pete’s business, his stubborn antipathy towards popular music is driving his record label towards bankruptcy. But that’s not all that’s troubling Pete and Debbie. Both have daddy issues and neither know how quite to handle their over-emotional 14 year old daughter.
Sound like a hodge-podge of dilemmas? It certainly is. What started out as an amusing tale of turning 40 quickly devolved into a manic mess of pointing fingers, curse words, teenage angst and mental breakdowns. At one point in the film, Debbie’s dad, played by John Lithgow, looked utterly confused and I could empathize. If this movie had a storyline, it got lost along with any sympathy for Pete or Pete’s dad played by Albert Brooks. You know it’s bad when you start hoping the 8 year old daughter, Charlotte, says something funny again to break the tension.
With this strong cast of actors, including director Judd Apatow’s daughters Maude and Iris who played Pete and Debbie’s daughters, Sadie and Charlotte, there was no issue with the performances. Maybe some of the story was trimmed away in the editing room, but with a run time of 134 minutes, one would think some semblance of a storyline could have been left. Sure, there was plenty to laugh at, especially with bit parts played by Jason Segal, Melissa McCarthy and Chris O’Dowd.
I really wanted to like this movie. Judd Apatow, Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann sounded like the perfect trio to make a funny movie. Alas, the funny stuff is in the trailers. Save yourself some dough and wait for the DVD, where some of the storyline may make it in the deleted scenes.
To the casual observer, Pete and Debbie, played with great chemistry by Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann, live an idyllic life with a nice house, two daughters and promising businesses. But a closer look finds Pete would rather play Scrabble on his iPad while on the toilet than spend time playing with his daughters. Most would never guess Debbie is a stress smoker since she goes to great lengths to hide her habit. Stressing over turning 40 isn’t helping her quit and neither is trying to figure out which of her employees is stealing from her. Is it the sexpot Desi, played easily by Megan Fox, or is it the strange Jodi, played with eerie weirdness by Charlyne Yi? As for Pete’s business, his stubborn antipathy towards popular music is driving his record label towards bankruptcy. But that’s not all that’s troubling Pete and Debbie. Both have daddy issues and neither know how quite to handle their over-emotional 14 year old daughter.
Sound like a hodge-podge of dilemmas? It certainly is. What started out as an amusing tale of turning 40 quickly devolved into a manic mess of pointing fingers, curse words, teenage angst and mental breakdowns. At one point in the film, Debbie’s dad, played by John Lithgow, looked utterly confused and I could empathize. If this movie had a storyline, it got lost along with any sympathy for Pete or Pete’s dad played by Albert Brooks. You know it’s bad when you start hoping the 8 year old daughter, Charlotte, says something funny again to break the tension.
With this strong cast of actors, including director Judd Apatow’s daughters Maude and Iris who played Pete and Debbie’s daughters, Sadie and Charlotte, there was no issue with the performances. Maybe some of the story was trimmed away in the editing room, but with a run time of 134 minutes, one would think some semblance of a storyline could have been left. Sure, there was plenty to laugh at, especially with bit parts played by Jason Segal, Melissa McCarthy and Chris O’Dowd.
I really wanted to like this movie. Judd Apatow, Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann sounded like the perfect trio to make a funny movie. Alas, the funny stuff is in the trailers. Save yourself some dough and wait for the DVD, where some of the storyline may make it in the deleted scenes.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Ted (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Full disclosure: I am a huge Family Guy fan. I’ve been watching since day one, and even own every volume and special edition DVD released. Okay, now that we have that out of the way.
Ted is the multi-talented Seth MacFarlane’s directorial debut for a feature films. It follows the story of John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg), who as a kid never really had any friends. For Christmas he received a talking teddy bear, which he decided to name Ted. One day he makes a wish that will forever change his life, a wish that Ted could really talk to him and be best friends. That wish came true.
Ted became a world-wide sensation. He was not a figment of John’s imagination, but rather a real-life talking teddy bear. Ted (who is voiced by MacFarlane) becomes the overnight celebrity that we have seen so many times, and eventually becomes old news when fame becomes fleeting.
Flash forward 28 years to present day, John is now 35, but still acts very much the child.
He is in a dead end job, and would rather blow the important things off in his life to hang with his best friend Ted.
This includes is Lori (Mila Kunis), his girlfriend of four years. I think we see where this going, typical relationship problems and the movie then becomes about trying to win Lori back with the help of Ted.
While the story line is a little predictable, it never felt that way while watching it. There is a lot of subtle humor, and there is a lot of in your face rude, crude humor. There were also a lot of cameos. Some will only be obvious to Family Guy fans or fans of the eighties, while others will be right in your face.
One thing that grinds my gears is when some movies these day show the funniest moments in the trailer, and the rest of the movie is… eh.
One thing is for sure: it keeps you laughing almost the whole way through. There were even some lines that I missed because of how loud the laughter in the theater was (which means a repeat trip, I think).
There were a lot of one-liners, though, that I will probably end up using on a regular basis.
I kind of always get nervous about bringing someone to a movie I want to see, afraid that they won’t like my choice. My guest came in with very low expectations of the film, but she ended up laughing the entire time, and even got really caught up in the tense moments.
With all of the drug and sex references, and crude humor, this movie is definitely not meant for a younger audience, or probably even the really easily offended. Keep that in mind and if you still want to watch, you will not be disappointed.
Ted is the multi-talented Seth MacFarlane’s directorial debut for a feature films. It follows the story of John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg), who as a kid never really had any friends. For Christmas he received a talking teddy bear, which he decided to name Ted. One day he makes a wish that will forever change his life, a wish that Ted could really talk to him and be best friends. That wish came true.
Ted became a world-wide sensation. He was not a figment of John’s imagination, but rather a real-life talking teddy bear. Ted (who is voiced by MacFarlane) becomes the overnight celebrity that we have seen so many times, and eventually becomes old news when fame becomes fleeting.
Flash forward 28 years to present day, John is now 35, but still acts very much the child.
He is in a dead end job, and would rather blow the important things off in his life to hang with his best friend Ted.
This includes is Lori (Mila Kunis), his girlfriend of four years. I think we see where this going, typical relationship problems and the movie then becomes about trying to win Lori back with the help of Ted.
While the story line is a little predictable, it never felt that way while watching it. There is a lot of subtle humor, and there is a lot of in your face rude, crude humor. There were also a lot of cameos. Some will only be obvious to Family Guy fans or fans of the eighties, while others will be right in your face.
One thing that grinds my gears is when some movies these day show the funniest moments in the trailer, and the rest of the movie is… eh.
One thing is for sure: it keeps you laughing almost the whole way through. There were even some lines that I missed because of how loud the laughter in the theater was (which means a repeat trip, I think).
There were a lot of one-liners, though, that I will probably end up using on a regular basis.
I kind of always get nervous about bringing someone to a movie I want to see, afraid that they won’t like my choice. My guest came in with very low expectations of the film, but she ended up laughing the entire time, and even got really caught up in the tense moments.
With all of the drug and sex references, and crude humor, this movie is definitely not meant for a younger audience, or probably even the really easily offended. Keep that in mind and if you still want to watch, you will not be disappointed.
PDF Reader COMPUTER BILD & COMPUTER BILD Spiele
News and Magazines & Newspapers
App
COMPUTER BILD Reader - das Magazin als App für iPhone oder iPad und so schnell, wie nie zuvor. ...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Payback (1999) in Movies
Jul 15, 2020
Get Ready To Root For The Bad Guy
Payback- is a intresting revenge action thriller. Maybe its me, but i fell like this movie is boring. Its good, but some what boring, like nothing going on. Also its kinda of confusing, again it might just be me, but i fell like its confusing as well. Like i said before its good, but in the end its both boring and confusing.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Woman in the Window (2021) in Movies
May 24, 2021
It is NOT Rear Window
A piece of advice for you when you start to watch the “Alfred Hitchcock-esque” thriller, THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW. If you are at all a Hitchcock fan, you will be spending the first part of this film comparing it to the 1954 classic REAR WINDOW and this would be a disservice to this film.
For…THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is no Rear Window, nor is it intended to be. It has many, many elements that are the same as Rear Window (most notably, the setup: a housebound person thinks they have witnessed a murder in a neighboring apartment), and THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is just like Rear Window…until it isn’t.
And that’s when I started to like this film, when I stopped comparing it (in my head) to Rear Window.
Based on the Best Seller by A.J. Finn (adapted for the screen by Tracy Letts who also appears in the film), THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW tells the tale of Anna Fox, an agoraphobic who watches life go on outside her window. When she thinks she has witnessed a murder, she (and the audience) must decide is it real? Did she truly witness a murder? If so, who dunnit? If not, is she just hallucinating things? Is Anna crazy?
The answers to these questions were satisfying enough to me that I ended up enjoying the film experience that I had - but I have to be honest and tell you that, for awhile, my enjoyment of this film was hanging by a thread.
Amy Adams (ENCHANTED) is terrific - if unspectacular - in the title role. Her Anna Fox is murkey (that is meant as a compliment) and struggles through most of the film trying to determine what is real and what is an illusion. Adams does a “journeyman’s” job with this role. She acts her way through it in such a workmanlike fashion that I almost forgot that it is Adams on the screen.
Wyatt Russell (Kurt’s son who is also the new Captain America in THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER) fares the best of the Supporting players for he has the most to do. Unfortunately, Director Joe Wright (ATONEMENT) and Screenwriter Letts wastes such strong actors as Gary Oldman (DARKEST HOUR), Julianne Moore (STILL ALICE), Anthony Mackie (The Falcon in the Marvel Movies), Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8), Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) and Letts himself in terribly underwritten roles that serve (mostly) as red herrings - and each of their characters are interchangeable and forgettable.
And that, ultimately, is where this film comes apart. While I cared about Anna and the solution to the mystery - I didn’t care very much about the other characters involved.
Which is why, I think, I’ll pull my DVD of Rear Window out and watch that film for the umpteenth time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
For…THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is no Rear Window, nor is it intended to be. It has many, many elements that are the same as Rear Window (most notably, the setup: a housebound person thinks they have witnessed a murder in a neighboring apartment), and THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is just like Rear Window…until it isn’t.
And that’s when I started to like this film, when I stopped comparing it (in my head) to Rear Window.
Based on the Best Seller by A.J. Finn (adapted for the screen by Tracy Letts who also appears in the film), THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW tells the tale of Anna Fox, an agoraphobic who watches life go on outside her window. When she thinks she has witnessed a murder, she (and the audience) must decide is it real? Did she truly witness a murder? If so, who dunnit? If not, is she just hallucinating things? Is Anna crazy?
The answers to these questions were satisfying enough to me that I ended up enjoying the film experience that I had - but I have to be honest and tell you that, for awhile, my enjoyment of this film was hanging by a thread.
Amy Adams (ENCHANTED) is terrific - if unspectacular - in the title role. Her Anna Fox is murkey (that is meant as a compliment) and struggles through most of the film trying to determine what is real and what is an illusion. Adams does a “journeyman’s” job with this role. She acts her way through it in such a workmanlike fashion that I almost forgot that it is Adams on the screen.
Wyatt Russell (Kurt’s son who is also the new Captain America in THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER) fares the best of the Supporting players for he has the most to do. Unfortunately, Director Joe Wright (ATONEMENT) and Screenwriter Letts wastes such strong actors as Gary Oldman (DARKEST HOUR), Julianne Moore (STILL ALICE), Anthony Mackie (The Falcon in the Marvel Movies), Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8), Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) and Letts himself in terribly underwritten roles that serve (mostly) as red herrings - and each of their characters are interchangeable and forgettable.
And that, ultimately, is where this film comes apart. While I cared about Anna and the solution to the mystery - I didn’t care very much about the other characters involved.
Which is why, I think, I’ll pull my DVD of Rear Window out and watch that film for the umpteenth time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
What can I say about this one? I left the cinema pondering. I'm still pondering this morning trying to work out what to score it. I wasn't bored, yet I wasn't enthralled. It felt long, but not too long. I could follow the story lines, but some of them didn't quite make sense... It's definitely a contender for Goldilocks of the Year.
I was keen on watching this after seeing the trailer. A star studded cast and an intriguing idea really is all you need to hook people in. I can't decide (I know, it's happening a lot this review) if the trailer gave too much away. Could they have kept more elements back as a surprise? Possibly that wouldn't have left such a sense of anticipation about the film.
Being set in 1969 we're obviously given a lot of classic tunes through the jukebox and singing of Darlene Sweet. The latter is goosebump inducing at times and magical to listen to.
The way this movie is told is very reminiscent of a lot of things to me. I was getting flashes of Kill Bill and Lost, and as Drew Goddard was involved with Lost that's probably not a coincidence. The scenario also made me think of the 2003 film Identity and an episode of Criminal Minds called Paradise.
I enjoyed seeing each person's journey that led them up to the El Royale. You feel much more involved in the story because you switch allegiances between the characters every time you see a new perspective. It also gives you just enough of teaser to something that's going to happen to draw you further in.
The use of intertitle cards felt a little out of place, it's not really a sixties thing and the style of them didn't seem to fit with the film itself. They do their job which is to say "now for a bit of back story on this person" but looking a little less silent movie and a little more El Royale wouldn't have gone amiss.
A whole section of story line seemed to have no conclusion, for reasons that will be partly obvious to you when you see the film. What I can't work out is if I missed something about it that would have left me less confused. This movie could definitely do with a second watch.
What you should do
I'd probably recommend watching this one at home on DVD or streaming with a bunch of movie friends. It feels like it needs discussing more than watching.
You should also probably watch this gif a lot. I'm only sorry that I can't find a longer version without other distractions in it... like the rest of the film.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd quite like the El Royale to live in. Although I think I'd convert the spying corridor into a regular corridor and make the whole place a home rather than a playground for snooping and murder.
I was keen on watching this after seeing the trailer. A star studded cast and an intriguing idea really is all you need to hook people in. I can't decide (I know, it's happening a lot this review) if the trailer gave too much away. Could they have kept more elements back as a surprise? Possibly that wouldn't have left such a sense of anticipation about the film.
Being set in 1969 we're obviously given a lot of classic tunes through the jukebox and singing of Darlene Sweet. The latter is goosebump inducing at times and magical to listen to.
The way this movie is told is very reminiscent of a lot of things to me. I was getting flashes of Kill Bill and Lost, and as Drew Goddard was involved with Lost that's probably not a coincidence. The scenario also made me think of the 2003 film Identity and an episode of Criminal Minds called Paradise.
I enjoyed seeing each person's journey that led them up to the El Royale. You feel much more involved in the story because you switch allegiances between the characters every time you see a new perspective. It also gives you just enough of teaser to something that's going to happen to draw you further in.
The use of intertitle cards felt a little out of place, it's not really a sixties thing and the style of them didn't seem to fit with the film itself. They do their job which is to say "now for a bit of back story on this person" but looking a little less silent movie and a little more El Royale wouldn't have gone amiss.
A whole section of story line seemed to have no conclusion, for reasons that will be partly obvious to you when you see the film. What I can't work out is if I missed something about it that would have left me less confused. This movie could definitely do with a second watch.
What you should do
I'd probably recommend watching this one at home on DVD or streaming with a bunch of movie friends. It feels like it needs discussing more than watching.
You should also probably watch this gif a lot. I'm only sorry that I can't find a longer version without other distractions in it... like the rest of the film.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd quite like the El Royale to live in. Although I think I'd convert the spying corridor into a regular corridor and make the whole place a home rather than a playground for snooping and murder.
VLC Remote
Entertainment and Music
9.0
Rate It
App
VLC Remote® lets you remotely control your VLC Media Player on your Mac or PC. Supports iPhone,...