Search
Search results
Phillip Youmans recommended There Will Be Blood (2007) in Movies (curated)
Dean (6921 KP) rated There Will Be Blood (2007) in Movies
Nov 5, 2017
A very unique film that will have most people in one of two camps. Some will love it as a quality film, with a great performance from Daniel Day-Lewis. It's well written and has some stand out cinematography. Others despite this will find the story a bit tedious, boring. The film is a bit too long, some will find it drags in places. I fall in between the two, appreciating a well made film but the story was just not that interesting. If you like films along the lines of the Godfather, charting rise to power etc you should like this.
Dana Calvo recommended The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988) in Movies (curated)
Awix (3310 KP) rated Phantom Thread (2017) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018 (Updated Feb 9, 2018)
Not a Fun Guy to Be With
Yet another reissue of the controversial 1999 movie, but this time George Lucas has taken out all the stuff with taxation and Jar Jar Binks in favour of fashion design... ha ha, I jest.
Daniel Day-Lewis plays an obsessional creative genius who throws himself completely into his work and is very demanding of everyone around him, and is occasionally prone to hallucinating dead family members (so perhaps this role was less of a stretch for him than many).
Initially this comes across as a slightly so-what romantic drama about the relationship between a powerful, privileged man and a much younger woman, with him as a manipulative user and her, essentially, as a victim, but it eventually turns into a dark and even slightly twisted tale of what it sometimes takes to make a relationship work.
Day-Lewis is good, obviously, but so is Vicky Krieps as the woman in his life; presumably it's only her obscurity that's kept her from getting awards nods as she is really as good as he is.
Probably not for everyone, but Paul Anderson's most satisfying and accessible film for some years.
Daniel Day-Lewis plays an obsessional creative genius who throws himself completely into his work and is very demanding of everyone around him, and is occasionally prone to hallucinating dead family members (so perhaps this role was less of a stretch for him than many).
Initially this comes across as a slightly so-what romantic drama about the relationship between a powerful, privileged man and a much younger woman, with him as a manipulative user and her, essentially, as a victim, but it eventually turns into a dark and even slightly twisted tale of what it sometimes takes to make a relationship work.
Day-Lewis is good, obviously, but so is Vicky Krieps as the woman in his life; presumably it's only her obscurity that's kept her from getting awards nods as she is really as good as he is.
Probably not for everyone, but Paul Anderson's most satisfying and accessible film for some years.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Little Buddha (1994) in Movies
May 27, 2019 (Updated May 27, 2019)
Keanu Reeves IS the Buddha in this hard-to-categorise epic. At first glance it looks like a ridiculous choice, but on reflection, which other actor, particularly of his generation, could have done a better job? This doesn't mean that the flashbacks to the Buddha's early life in ancient India are any less difficult to take completely seriously - though vivid and unusual, this part of the film is still as didactic and earnest as the rest of it - but at least they're better than the stodgy present-day stuff, which is afflicted by a performance from Chris Izaak so wooden he makes Keanu look like Daniel Day-Lewis.
Still, for the open-minded there is some interesting material about the origins and philosophy of Buddhism here; not much to reward the cynical, though. It's probably a bit too slow and underpowered to really be considered a success, but few failures are quite as original and interesting as this one.
Still, for the open-minded there is some interesting material about the origins and philosophy of Buddhism here; not much to reward the cynical, though. It's probably a bit too slow and underpowered to really be considered a success, but few failures are quite as original and interesting as this one.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Devil's Own (1997) in Movies
Jul 4, 2021
I don't know what's worse: a film that's underwritten and knows it, or a film which sets up such thought-provoking themes only to immediately ditch them by the wayside (which this one is). It's so frustrating how this had most of the elements just on principle alone to be really, really good and it still wasn't. Seemingly intentionally unexciting, so much so that Brad Pitt's middle-schooler-impression-of-Daniel-Day-Lewis-from-𝘐𝘯-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘕𝘢𝘮𝘦-𝘰𝘧-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 accent is actually the best part of it. Gets semi-engaging in the last 45 minutes if only because it finally gets some of the right look + feel for what this wants to be, but even then it's got no bite and is disgustingly pro-cop (a cop who shot dead an unarmed victim multiple times then tried to force everyone to cover it up and doesn't regret it can be redeemed without doing anything!). Poises itself to go over issues of oppression, nationalism, trauma, violence, and what happens when they all intersect - but never does. Harrison Ford is so bland here, too. Doesn't even care about its own story, what a fucking shame. This really coulda been something.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Phantom Thread (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“There’s an air of quiet death in this house”.
The alleged acting swan-song of Daniel Day-Lewis (“Lincoln“) sees him deliver a brilliantly intense portrayal of a maestro in his craft with all the quirks and egotistical faults that come with that position.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Lincoln (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The history of this country is steeped in mystery and intrigue, but it’s fuzzy on the details. We cling to heroes of the past because we are jaded by the present. Lincoln, a new film from Steven Spielberg, comes to us at a time when there seems to be even more political strife than usual. (Or perhaps that’s just me getting older and actually paying attention.) Either way, I think this movie’s arrival on the silver screen is very timely, given the recent election.
Daniel Day Lewis, a man revered for his choice of films and roles, as well as his ability to portray characters with so much emotion and conviction, has done it once again. As the title character for this film, Lewis portrays one of the U.S.A’s greatest leaders and pioneers in a way that few other men could. Surrounded by some of the best actors in Hollywood (including Tommy Lee Jones), this star-studded film has a laundry list of very recognizable faces from all corners of Hollywood. The red carpet was clearly rolled out for this film.
The story starts amid the death and destruction of the American Civil War, an event that is both a fixed point of the story and a constant backdrop. Seeing the fighting and killing made me wonder how gritty this movie would get, but as it turns out, they kept the level of gore pretty low.
The film goes on to set the stage for the final footsteps into the southern theater that was the Civil War. In tandem, it follows the highly controversial 13th amendment, which was barely passed at the time due to racism and the belief that one color of human should be slave to another color. The absurdity of this notion is highlighted, but it’s also familiar in the way it parallels issues we face today: legalizing pot, gay marriage, prostitution, the right to bear arms, etc. Perhaps our grandchildren will watch a film in the future about these struggles, and regard it as we do a film about the Civil War. As I sat and watched this movie, I was nearly in tears at the thought of how African-Americans were once regarded as lesser beings. Will our grandchildren cry at the ridiculousness of our beliefs?
The cinematography was amazingly crisp. Many of the characters are introduced in such a way that they have a grand entrance through the mystique created by camera angles. I have to truly applaud Spielberg for what might be his best film yet. The camera work was immensely effective, relying heavily on the contrast between shadow and light. Coupled with richly detailed sets, it made everything staggeringly realistic, and absolutely convincing.
I will say this for Lincoln: I haven’t been so moved and taken aback by a period film in my life. This is a must see for everyone.
The dialog is highly political, and sometimes goes along at quite a clip; be prepared to miss a few things the first time around. However, watching it a second time surely won’t be a sin. The humor alone merits a second viewing. There are many good laughs to be had.
Lincoln is a work of art.
Daniel Day Lewis, a man revered for his choice of films and roles, as well as his ability to portray characters with so much emotion and conviction, has done it once again. As the title character for this film, Lewis portrays one of the U.S.A’s greatest leaders and pioneers in a way that few other men could. Surrounded by some of the best actors in Hollywood (including Tommy Lee Jones), this star-studded film has a laundry list of very recognizable faces from all corners of Hollywood. The red carpet was clearly rolled out for this film.
The story starts amid the death and destruction of the American Civil War, an event that is both a fixed point of the story and a constant backdrop. Seeing the fighting and killing made me wonder how gritty this movie would get, but as it turns out, they kept the level of gore pretty low.
The film goes on to set the stage for the final footsteps into the southern theater that was the Civil War. In tandem, it follows the highly controversial 13th amendment, which was barely passed at the time due to racism and the belief that one color of human should be slave to another color. The absurdity of this notion is highlighted, but it’s also familiar in the way it parallels issues we face today: legalizing pot, gay marriage, prostitution, the right to bear arms, etc. Perhaps our grandchildren will watch a film in the future about these struggles, and regard it as we do a film about the Civil War. As I sat and watched this movie, I was nearly in tears at the thought of how African-Americans were once regarded as lesser beings. Will our grandchildren cry at the ridiculousness of our beliefs?
The cinematography was amazingly crisp. Many of the characters are introduced in such a way that they have a grand entrance through the mystique created by camera angles. I have to truly applaud Spielberg for what might be his best film yet. The camera work was immensely effective, relying heavily on the contrast between shadow and light. Coupled with richly detailed sets, it made everything staggeringly realistic, and absolutely convincing.
I will say this for Lincoln: I haven’t been so moved and taken aback by a period film in my life. This is a must see for everyone.
The dialog is highly political, and sometimes goes along at quite a clip; be prepared to miss a few things the first time around. However, watching it a second time surely won’t be a sin. The humor alone merits a second viewing. There are many good laughs to be had.
Lincoln is a work of art.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
The El Royale Hotel sit directly on the California and Nevada border just outside of Lake Tahoe. In its heyday, the novelty hotel, vibrant and bustling with activity. Even getting visits from famous actors, singers and politicians. But by the 1960s those days had gone and now it is rundown and mostly vacant. Then on one fateful day a group of random strangers meet at the El Royale. There is a minister, Father Daniel Flynn (Jeff Bridges), on his way back from Oakland visiting his brother. Singer Darlene Sweet (Cynthia Erivo) who came to the El Royale because her midday casino singing gig in Reno didn’t pay enough for her to stay anywhere else. Then there is Laramie Seymour Sullivan (John Hamm) the vacuum salesman who talks fast and loud. His company does all the hotel bookings so he was stuck with the El Royale, but he is dead set on enjoying the luxurious Honeymoon Suite given the choices. Lastly, there is Emily (Dakota Johnson) she doesn’t say much besides she wants a room far away from the other guests. The mismatched group is all greeted by the bellhop/bar tender/service manager Miles (Lewis Pullman). All seems like a chance meeting of a group of travelers. But nothing is what it seems. By the nights end all manner of secrets will come out and all the guests’ lives will be in jeopardy.
El Royale is a well-crafted and executed mystery/thriller. Writer and Director Drew Goddard (The Martian) does a great job of telling an original story. It keeps you guessing to the end. The cast for the most part is really good. Chris Hemsworth (as Billy Lee) and Cailee Spaeny (as Ruth Summersping) have more underwhelming performances compared to the rest of the cast but still good. Cynthia Erivo, for me, had a great performance. I thought her voice was amazing and how her character was developed throughout the film was interesting and well done. The pace of the movie does start out somewhat slow but rapidly builds and overall is good. The film is set in the 1960s and definitely feels like of that era with the music, news stories, overall appearance of the hotel rooms, etc.
I enjoyed this film. I thought the way the story unfolded was interesting and original. One part that really occurred to be later is that you never really knew who the hero of the film was or would wind up being. When I thought I had it figured out something would happen to change my mind. Or maybe there was not really hero. The slow build up was a little long for me but otherwise it was a great movie theater experience.
El Royale is a well-crafted and executed mystery/thriller. Writer and Director Drew Goddard (The Martian) does a great job of telling an original story. It keeps you guessing to the end. The cast for the most part is really good. Chris Hemsworth (as Billy Lee) and Cailee Spaeny (as Ruth Summersping) have more underwhelming performances compared to the rest of the cast but still good. Cynthia Erivo, for me, had a great performance. I thought her voice was amazing and how her character was developed throughout the film was interesting and well done. The pace of the movie does start out somewhat slow but rapidly builds and overall is good. The film is set in the 1960s and definitely feels like of that era with the music, news stories, overall appearance of the hotel rooms, etc.
I enjoyed this film. I thought the way the story unfolded was interesting and original. One part that really occurred to be later is that you never really knew who the hero of the film was or would wind up being. When I thought I had it figured out something would happen to change my mind. Or maybe there was not really hero. The slow build up was a little long for me but otherwise it was a great movie theater experience.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
I’m a sucker for a Prohibition-set yarn. It’s a fascinating period in history and typically yields excellent filmmaking with gritty, no-nonsense performances, gorgeous production design and hard-boiled action. It was De Palma’s The Untouchables that hooked me. Some would call it a guilty pleasure; and sure, Morricone’s score is a little over-the-top, De Niro is more caricature than character actor as Al Capone and I’m not going to argue that Connery’s Oscar was a “sympathy vote”, but it’s got everything I mentioned above in spades and for me it’ll always be the high benchmark of the Prohibition era gangster epic. Ben Affleck’s fourth turn as director has done nothing to change my position on that.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.