Search
Search results
Lee Ronaldo recommended This Year's Model by Elvis Costello / Elvis Costello & The Attractions in Music (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated We're The Millers (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Life for petty drug dealer David Clark (Jason Sudeikes) is a fairly routine existence. He has his regular customers and makes his living selling small quantities of marijuana to his regulars while maintaining his ethical standards not to sell to children. David had fallen into this line of work in college and is managed to get by and save $20,000 for himself. David’s former college cohort Brad (Ed Helms) is his major supplier and unlike David, Brad has grown extremely wealthy and powerful through letting people like David do the dirty work.
David has long held a torch for his neighbor Rose (Jennifer Aniston), a stripper with a heart of gold who seems only successful at attracting loser boyfriends and maintaining her disdain for David.
When a local homeless girl named Casey (Emma Roberts), is accosted in front of his apartment building, David reluctantly comes to the aid of a well-intentioned dork named Kenny (Will Poulter), who has a habit of acting without thinking. Since Kenny is one of David’s neighbors and despite his geeky nature a good kid, David reluctantly becomes involved and soon finds himself the target of the assailants. Adding insult to injury, the robbers take all his money and drug supplies, including his savings.
Unable to pay Brad for what was taken, David reluctantly enters into an agreement where he traveled to Mexico and return a quantity of marijuana for Brad who in turn will wipe his debts clean and pay him for his efforts. Not wanting to end up in jail but seeing no other way out of his predicament, David enlists Casey, Kenny, and a reluctant but desperate Rose to pose as his all-American family for the trip in an effort to throw off any customs or law enforcement officials would be suspicious of David traveling alone.
Things seem to go smoothly at first despite tensions amongst the ad hoc family and despite a rendezvous with some scary individuals; they soon find their R.V. loaded to the max with bundles of drugs. This development panics David as he was expecting to transport only a modest amount across the border and realizes that being discovered with the quantities he’s attempting to smuggle into the country would result in some serious jail time.
Undaunted, the family who dubbed themselves the Miller’s continue with the plan which results in a series of humorous misfortunes along the way him including an overzealous RV couple (Nick Offerman and Katheryn Hahn), who just happens to be an active DEA agent with a knack for showing up no matter where the Miller’s go. You race against time with some serious bad guys in pursuit; the Miller’s must come together and put aside their dysfunctions to accomplish their bizarre and wacky mission.
While most people will be able to see the romantic subplots from a mile away what really makes this film shine is the outrageous comedy that is persistent throughout. The best laughs have not been wasted in the trailers which is unfortunately all too common for films of this type and the supporting work of Offerman and Poulter nearly steal the movie. Aniston is essentially playing the same character she plays in almost every one of her performances but at least she gets to take a little bit wilder edge that she teased in last year’s “Horrible Bosses”. Her repair shop striptease is definitely one of the more memorable scenes in the film that has nothing on the tender yet humorous scene or she decides to help Kenny out in regard to his awkwardness with women.
Sudeikes has really been on a roll of late as he not only had a hit with the previously mentioned “Horrible Bosses”, but has done solid work in the interim not the least of which is his outing as the sympathetic Dave. One would think film about drug smugglers, strippers, and other social undesirables would not be so enjoyable nor would characters come across is so endearing and sympathetic. That being said the film was definitely very pleasant supriserites and if you set your expectations accordingly you may find yourself not only laughing along at the outrageous antics but looking forward to spending more time with this crazy group in the future.
http://sknr.net/2013/08/07/were-the-millers/
David has long held a torch for his neighbor Rose (Jennifer Aniston), a stripper with a heart of gold who seems only successful at attracting loser boyfriends and maintaining her disdain for David.
When a local homeless girl named Casey (Emma Roberts), is accosted in front of his apartment building, David reluctantly comes to the aid of a well-intentioned dork named Kenny (Will Poulter), who has a habit of acting without thinking. Since Kenny is one of David’s neighbors and despite his geeky nature a good kid, David reluctantly becomes involved and soon finds himself the target of the assailants. Adding insult to injury, the robbers take all his money and drug supplies, including his savings.
Unable to pay Brad for what was taken, David reluctantly enters into an agreement where he traveled to Mexico and return a quantity of marijuana for Brad who in turn will wipe his debts clean and pay him for his efforts. Not wanting to end up in jail but seeing no other way out of his predicament, David enlists Casey, Kenny, and a reluctant but desperate Rose to pose as his all-American family for the trip in an effort to throw off any customs or law enforcement officials would be suspicious of David traveling alone.
Things seem to go smoothly at first despite tensions amongst the ad hoc family and despite a rendezvous with some scary individuals; they soon find their R.V. loaded to the max with bundles of drugs. This development panics David as he was expecting to transport only a modest amount across the border and realizes that being discovered with the quantities he’s attempting to smuggle into the country would result in some serious jail time.
Undaunted, the family who dubbed themselves the Miller’s continue with the plan which results in a series of humorous misfortunes along the way him including an overzealous RV couple (Nick Offerman and Katheryn Hahn), who just happens to be an active DEA agent with a knack for showing up no matter where the Miller’s go. You race against time with some serious bad guys in pursuit; the Miller’s must come together and put aside their dysfunctions to accomplish their bizarre and wacky mission.
While most people will be able to see the romantic subplots from a mile away what really makes this film shine is the outrageous comedy that is persistent throughout. The best laughs have not been wasted in the trailers which is unfortunately all too common for films of this type and the supporting work of Offerman and Poulter nearly steal the movie. Aniston is essentially playing the same character she plays in almost every one of her performances but at least she gets to take a little bit wilder edge that she teased in last year’s “Horrible Bosses”. Her repair shop striptease is definitely one of the more memorable scenes in the film that has nothing on the tender yet humorous scene or she decides to help Kenny out in regard to his awkwardness with women.
Sudeikes has really been on a roll of late as he not only had a hit with the previously mentioned “Horrible Bosses”, but has done solid work in the interim not the least of which is his outing as the sympathetic Dave. One would think film about drug smugglers, strippers, and other social undesirables would not be so enjoyable nor would characters come across is so endearing and sympathetic. That being said the film was definitely very pleasant supriserites and if you set your expectations accordingly you may find yourself not only laughing along at the outrageous antics but looking forward to spending more time with this crazy group in the future.
http://sknr.net/2013/08/07/were-the-millers/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
This retelling of Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield takes us from his birth, through his adolescence and adulthood. With the tempo set like a whirling dervish from the moment David (Dev Patel) takes us with him to witness his birth and travel along through his pivotal life moments as he tells his story.
We see his birth where his mother, Clara Copperfield (Morfydd Clark, playing a double role, later as Dora Spenlow) a slight, fantastical woman, and the steadfast housekeeper, Peggotty (Daisy May Cooper) go through the hectic confusion while people mill about, entering and exiting during the process of birth. His Aunt, Betsy (Tilda Swinton) goes about, adding to the calamity insistent that the child of her late brother would be a girl, who would carry her legacy as a Trotwood. Her eccentricity noted immediately as she storms out once learning the child is a boy.
The film progresses, with the same quick tempo, through his brief, idyllic childhood with his mother, then his trip to Yarmouth summering with Peggotty’s family where his imagination begins its bloom in the house that is a boat, by the sea. Once David returns home, he is informed that his mother had married, and his stepfather sends him to London. He is sent to live with Mr. & Mrs. Micawber (Peter Capaldi and Bronagh Gallagher) while he works at the bottle factory.
David’s life goes from famine to feast, bear to bull. However, he has learned resilience through his encounters with people of all classes and situations. As Copperfield makes his way through life, the tempo slows down, and the frenzy subsides.
Yes, it’s a remake, the film is beautifully made, the cast is an incredibly talented international group. Hugh Laurie and Tilda Swinton provide an endearing portrait of eclectic personalities. The film is just a charming and whimsical piece of storytelling.
We see his birth where his mother, Clara Copperfield (Morfydd Clark, playing a double role, later as Dora Spenlow) a slight, fantastical woman, and the steadfast housekeeper, Peggotty (Daisy May Cooper) go through the hectic confusion while people mill about, entering and exiting during the process of birth. His Aunt, Betsy (Tilda Swinton) goes about, adding to the calamity insistent that the child of her late brother would be a girl, who would carry her legacy as a Trotwood. Her eccentricity noted immediately as she storms out once learning the child is a boy.
The film progresses, with the same quick tempo, through his brief, idyllic childhood with his mother, then his trip to Yarmouth summering with Peggotty’s family where his imagination begins its bloom in the house that is a boat, by the sea. Once David returns home, he is informed that his mother had married, and his stepfather sends him to London. He is sent to live with Mr. & Mrs. Micawber (Peter Capaldi and Bronagh Gallagher) while he works at the bottle factory.
David’s life goes from famine to feast, bear to bull. However, he has learned resilience through his encounters with people of all classes and situations. As Copperfield makes his way through life, the tempo slows down, and the frenzy subsides.
Yes, it’s a remake, the film is beautifully made, the cast is an incredibly talented international group. Hugh Laurie and Tilda Swinton provide an endearing portrait of eclectic personalities. The film is just a charming and whimsical piece of storytelling.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Saint Maud (2020) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
Morfydd Clark - astonishingly good as Maud (1 more)
Expert pacing from debut director Rose Glass
"My Little Saviour": Astonishing Saint Maud delivers psycho-religious chills
Saint Maud is the debut feature from writer/director Rose Glass, and it packs a punch. The film was first seen at last year's London Film Festival, but was due for broader nationwide release soon. What a crushing disappointment it must be for Ms Glass that so few people will likely get to see it in the current climate... at least, not for a while. Since it is an effective little chiller.
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Man of Steel (2013) in Movies
May 21, 2019
"It's not an s on my world it means hope"
Superman's origin has been retold in comics more than any other character. But how do you reboot such a beloved icon in film form without making his origin feel unnecessary to go through again. By handing him over to the masters of all reboots. While developing the story for The Dark Knight Rises, Director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer developed a new way to bring the man of steel to life. The duo previously saved Batman and made him a cinematic legend again and now they plan to save Superman from uneven sequels and a stale image. And who did they invite to lead this revival? None other than director Zack Snyder, a visual wizard with a lackluster reputation in storytelling thanks to his remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch. Now despite some filmmaking stumbles along the way, the trio make for a surprisingly great combination and deliver the modern Superman film we have waited 75 years for with Man of Steel. We are given both Superman and a Clark Kent who doesn't know his place in the world and is coming to terms with how the public perceives him.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Love And Friendship (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Beckinsale excels in a comic tale of Girl Power in the 1790’s.
Set in 1790, Kate Beckinsale plays Lady Susan Vernon, an 18th century cuckoo-like ‘MILF’ (actually, more ‘LILF’, but using the ‘Lady’ term loosely) who with her glamourous demeanor is lusted after by both younger beaus as well as married aristocracy: an example being Lord Manwaring (Lochlann O’Mearáin).
Playing many different ends against the middle, Lady Susan – with the collusion of her American friend Alicia (Chloë Sevigny) – attempts to both find a suitably rich suitor for her daughter Frederica (Morfydd Clark) as well as finding a rich husband for herself to allow her to stay in the manor (sic) to which she has become accustomed. A tale of deception, pregnancy and a marriage of convenience follows: does Lady Susan have to choose between her sexual desires and the rich, stupid and dull Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett, “David Brent: Life on the Road”). Or can she have her cake and eat it?
Based on a Jane Austen short story, “Lady Susan”, this is a delight from beginning to end. However, it does require the attention of the viewer: characters get introduced to you in rapid fire succession, and keeping track of who’s who and how they interrelate is quite a challenge.
But this is a tour de force for Kate “Underworld” Beckinsale who delivers a depth of acting ability that I’ve not seen from her in the past. Her comic timing is just sublime, and while comedies are often overlooked in Awards season, this is a role for which she richly deserves both BAFTA and Oscar recognition.
Stephen Fry joins what is a superb ensemble cast. But outstanding among them is Tom Bennett who is simply hilarious as the nice but dim Sir James. The comic routine about his misunderstanding of “Churchill” (Church – Hill) – a running gag – is sublime and a challenger (with “Was that it t’were so simple”) for the comedy routine of the year.
Directed by Whit Stilman (“The Last Days of Disco”) from his own screenplay, this is one for the more sophisticated viewer: requiring of your full attention, but a treat for the eyes, ears and brain.
Playing many different ends against the middle, Lady Susan – with the collusion of her American friend Alicia (Chloë Sevigny) – attempts to both find a suitably rich suitor for her daughter Frederica (Morfydd Clark) as well as finding a rich husband for herself to allow her to stay in the manor (sic) to which she has become accustomed. A tale of deception, pregnancy and a marriage of convenience follows: does Lady Susan have to choose between her sexual desires and the rich, stupid and dull Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett, “David Brent: Life on the Road”). Or can she have her cake and eat it?
Based on a Jane Austen short story, “Lady Susan”, this is a delight from beginning to end. However, it does require the attention of the viewer: characters get introduced to you in rapid fire succession, and keeping track of who’s who and how they interrelate is quite a challenge.
But this is a tour de force for Kate “Underworld” Beckinsale who delivers a depth of acting ability that I’ve not seen from her in the past. Her comic timing is just sublime, and while comedies are often overlooked in Awards season, this is a role for which she richly deserves both BAFTA and Oscar recognition.
Stephen Fry joins what is a superb ensemble cast. But outstanding among them is Tom Bennett who is simply hilarious as the nice but dim Sir James. The comic routine about his misunderstanding of “Churchill” (Church – Hill) – a running gag – is sublime and a challenger (with “Was that it t’were so simple”) for the comedy routine of the year.
Directed by Whit Stilman (“The Last Days of Disco”) from his own screenplay, this is one for the more sophisticated viewer: requiring of your full attention, but a treat for the eyes, ears and brain.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2021
The fantastic ensemble cast (1 more)
Great directing and editing
Effortlessly stylish and entertaining
The Personal History of David Copperfield starts with the young man (Dev Patel) regaling a theatre audience with a reading of his autobiography. This immediately pitches him into witnessing his own birth to widowed single mother Clara (the wonderful Morfydd Clark, or "Saint Maud" fame). From there, Copperfield goes helter-skelter into a rollercoaster life encompassing workhouse-bottling poverty, fish-gutting and rich gentlemanly pursuits.
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Figment Wars: Search for the Caretaker in Books
Jan 9, 2020
The Figment Wars: Search for the Caretaker by David R. Lord is the second book but clearly it is not intended to be last of the Figment Wars series. Old friends are reunited and familiar foes are faced along side some new ones in this twisty, imaginative story. While it is not completely required I highly recommend reading The Figment Wars: Through the Portal before this one.
In the previous book Thomas, Isaac, and Emily defeated Torvik in the Realm of Imagination and watched him disappear into the Void, or so they thought. After returning home from their family vacation Thomas and Isaac get ready for the start of their school year and are introduced to their new headteacher Mr. Newman. To their surprise, the headteacher is someone they have already met and they quickly become concerned about his plans for the school. Thomas and Isaac decide that trying to find The Caretaker is probably their best bet and turn to the internet for information.
This brings them to the attention of The Society whose ultimate goal is to kill The Caretaker and destroy the Realm of Imagination in order to become extremely powerful and take over the world. This threat greatly trumps that of Mr. Newman, especially once one member of The Society, Magnus, gets a hold of an artifact giving his imagination full power in the Realm of Reality. Thomas and Isaac, along with Emily and Clark team up with Mr. Newman to put an end to the new threat and send the artifact back to the Realm of Imagination. This all goes according to plan until Magnus refuses to let go of the artifact.
What I liked best was that the old saying The enemy of my enemy is my friend plays a big role as two unlikely groups team-up. It is great to see a change of heart in some of the characters as the come to recognize new facts about their own existence. It was also wonderful to see how the Realm of Imagination was created. I was disappointed to see Isaac being left out at the end of the book but I feel like he may play a bigger role than expected in the next one. I was also surprised at how quickly Thomass parents let Thomas and Emily go, but that is normally the case with this type of book.
Just like the one before it this second Figment Wars book is geared towards the young adult age range. While this is such a broad group it is fitting as people of all ages will enjoy this book. I increased the rating of this book from the 3 out of 4 of its prequel to a rating of 4 out of 4. This book doesn't just take place in the same world(s) as the first one but directly continues after its end. The rules established in the first are also still followed even if it makes things difficult and inconvenient for some characters. I hope to have the chance to read book three.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
In the previous book Thomas, Isaac, and Emily defeated Torvik in the Realm of Imagination and watched him disappear into the Void, or so they thought. After returning home from their family vacation Thomas and Isaac get ready for the start of their school year and are introduced to their new headteacher Mr. Newman. To their surprise, the headteacher is someone they have already met and they quickly become concerned about his plans for the school. Thomas and Isaac decide that trying to find The Caretaker is probably their best bet and turn to the internet for information.
This brings them to the attention of The Society whose ultimate goal is to kill The Caretaker and destroy the Realm of Imagination in order to become extremely powerful and take over the world. This threat greatly trumps that of Mr. Newman, especially once one member of The Society, Magnus, gets a hold of an artifact giving his imagination full power in the Realm of Reality. Thomas and Isaac, along with Emily and Clark team up with Mr. Newman to put an end to the new threat and send the artifact back to the Realm of Imagination. This all goes according to plan until Magnus refuses to let go of the artifact.
What I liked best was that the old saying The enemy of my enemy is my friend plays a big role as two unlikely groups team-up. It is great to see a change of heart in some of the characters as the come to recognize new facts about their own existence. It was also wonderful to see how the Realm of Imagination was created. I was disappointed to see Isaac being left out at the end of the book but I feel like he may play a bigger role than expected in the next one. I was also surprised at how quickly Thomass parents let Thomas and Emily go, but that is normally the case with this type of book.
Just like the one before it this second Figment Wars book is geared towards the young adult age range. While this is such a broad group it is fitting as people of all ages will enjoy this book. I increased the rating of this book from the 3 out of 4 of its prequel to a rating of 4 out of 4. This book doesn't just take place in the same world(s) as the first one but directly continues after its end. The rules established in the first are also still followed even if it makes things difficult and inconvenient for some characters. I hope to have the chance to read book three.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
Lee (2222 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
What if Clark Kent grew up to be evil? What if, instead of growing up to be this all powerful protector of Earth and humanity, he decided he wanted to take the world, cruelly toying with and destroying humanity in the process? That's the premise behind Brightburn, a superhero horror movie from producer James Gunn, of Guardians of the Galaxy fame. Comic books are littered with plenty of 'what if' story-lines and alternate takes on popular superheroes, but up until now probably the most famous onscreen version of an evil Superman we've seen was in Superman III. And even then we only really got a drunk, unshaven, but still family friendly Superman, who felt a bit mischievous and blew out the Olympic torch for a bit of a laugh. Brightburn goes a lot darker, leaning heavily into horror with some wonderful, wince-inducing gory moments. If you're looking for Dark Phoenix levels of dark - moody, crying in the corner, that kind of thing - then you're going to be disappointed.
Brightburn begins by mirroring the origin story of Superman very closely - even the soundtrack reminded me of the music from 2013 movie Man of Steel on more than one occasion! Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Bryer (David Denman) are a happily married couple, living on a farm and longing for a child of their own. And then one night, a meteor crash lands out in the nearby woods, bringing them a baby boy who they adopt as their own. We see home movies of a normal baby/toddler as he grows up as part of a normal, loving family. And then we move forward 10 years to present day.
As an adolescent, Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) begins to experience some change in his life. His parents put it down to hormones, and attempt to give him the talk on girls and the facts of life, but it's a lot more than that. The rock shaped vessel which carried Brandon to Earth as a baby has been locked away in the family barn all these years, hidden from Brandon, but has now started glowing red. At the same time, something within Brandon appears to have been activated, and a number of small but disturbing incidents that follow leave his parents worried. They also realise that they've never actually seen their son bleed, or even hurt before. From there, the severity of these incidents increases greatly, and it becomes clear that there is definitely something very, very wrong with Brandon.
What I loved about Brightburn was the confined, low key setting of it all. The action is restricted primarily to the town of Brightburn, never really expanding into the worldwide, CGI heavy destruction of other superhero movies. We have an incredibly relatable mother who is out to love and protect her son until the bitter end, a father who becomes scared and horrified by everything that is unfolding, and then this powerful boy tearing the family apart - unpredictable and showing no sign of remorse or inner turmoil over everything that is happening. Outside of that, the action is confined to a relatively small cast - the local police, extended family and some other kids from school who we all follow throughout the movie - there's a lot of character depth to be found in Brightburn, which greatly adds to its overall enjoyment.
As is the norm these days though, the trailer does give away the majority of Brandon's targets and where he attacks them, meaning you kind of know what to expect for a lot of it. However, what the trailer doesn't give away is the atmosphere and the eeriness that builds to each of those shocking (and gory) moments and there are still plenty of jump scares and shocking scenes to keep you on your toes throughout. It builds to a climax which once again isn't a CGI overload, relying on shock and horror to deliver it's interesting conclusion. And, most importantly, it leaves the door open for what could be a very interesting sequel. I'm all up for that, and the direction that hints at, as I found Brightburn to be a very enjoyable and fresh take on the superhero genre.
Brightburn begins by mirroring the origin story of Superman very closely - even the soundtrack reminded me of the music from 2013 movie Man of Steel on more than one occasion! Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle Bryer (David Denman) are a happily married couple, living on a farm and longing for a child of their own. And then one night, a meteor crash lands out in the nearby woods, bringing them a baby boy who they adopt as their own. We see home movies of a normal baby/toddler as he grows up as part of a normal, loving family. And then we move forward 10 years to present day.
As an adolescent, Brandon (Jackson A. Dunn) begins to experience some change in his life. His parents put it down to hormones, and attempt to give him the talk on girls and the facts of life, but it's a lot more than that. The rock shaped vessel which carried Brandon to Earth as a baby has been locked away in the family barn all these years, hidden from Brandon, but has now started glowing red. At the same time, something within Brandon appears to have been activated, and a number of small but disturbing incidents that follow leave his parents worried. They also realise that they've never actually seen their son bleed, or even hurt before. From there, the severity of these incidents increases greatly, and it becomes clear that there is definitely something very, very wrong with Brandon.
What I loved about Brightburn was the confined, low key setting of it all. The action is restricted primarily to the town of Brightburn, never really expanding into the worldwide, CGI heavy destruction of other superhero movies. We have an incredibly relatable mother who is out to love and protect her son until the bitter end, a father who becomes scared and horrified by everything that is unfolding, and then this powerful boy tearing the family apart - unpredictable and showing no sign of remorse or inner turmoil over everything that is happening. Outside of that, the action is confined to a relatively small cast - the local police, extended family and some other kids from school who we all follow throughout the movie - there's a lot of character depth to be found in Brightburn, which greatly adds to its overall enjoyment.
As is the norm these days though, the trailer does give away the majority of Brandon's targets and where he attacks them, meaning you kind of know what to expect for a lot of it. However, what the trailer doesn't give away is the atmosphere and the eeriness that builds to each of those shocking (and gory) moments and there are still plenty of jump scares and shocking scenes to keep you on your toes throughout. It builds to a climax which once again isn't a CGI overload, relying on shock and horror to deliver it's interesting conclusion. And, most importantly, it leaves the door open for what could be a very interesting sequel. I'm all up for that, and the direction that hints at, as I found Brightburn to be a very enjoyable and fresh take on the superhero genre.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
