Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Pretentious. Is a word that sends shivers down my spine much more than any pseudo horror movie. It conveys the idea that the creator of a work is out of control, resorting to shock value over intelligent content. If the creator meant it all, then it is not pretentious, only dangerous.
Aronofsky is a difficult beast, because you can’t escape the fact he might deserve to be called pretentious. Such a fierce and singular film-maker, whose hit rate for getting it right is about 1/2. Yet, you can’t deny he has a go! His films are visceral nightmares, even when he pares it down to an earthly tale like The Wrestler. He wants you to feel before thinking. Black Swan pissed people off for this reason too; lucky for him, on that occasion, it mostly worked.
At the artist’s behest, mother! is to be spelled with a small case m, and an exclamation mark. I mean, that is an indicator of this man’s intent. It annoys me, let’s make no bones about it. It also excites me, because he has to live up to it! Opening every critical door available, because if you set yourself up to make that kind of statement, then the work better back it up.
The metaphor is thinly veiled; fooling some at the start that we might be watching a latter day Rosemary’s Baby, or, at the least, an invasion film with clever horror undertones. The mood is marvelously tense in the first hour, as we observe two massively capable actors doing their jobs effortlessly. So watchable are Lawrence and Bardem, that you begin to create your own movie in your mind around what is actually happening. Your own imagination is the star of the first half of this strange film.
It almost isn’t a spoiler anymore, so I will say, that Bardem is God and Lawrence is Gaia, mother earth. Take that onboard from the start and the whole may be more “enjoyble”. Although, Aronofsky doesn’t want you to enjoy it, he wants you to react… remember that! Because in the last hour he will force you to do so, and you probably won’t want to.
As with Requiem For a Dream, you may find yourself applauding the technical skill over the storytelling. With this film as evidence, I am now convinced that his trick is to throw the kitchen sink at you in the hope you will join the dots and find something worth talking about, without him having to bother. If I provide enough spectacle, he muses, they might label me a genius someday. Well, they might. But I won’t.
Yes, it almost makes sense if you crowbar it to, but, come on, it isn’t enough! At least David Lynch makes the weirdness so abstract to defy meaning. Aronofsky is creating dreamscapes that pretend to have relevance and wind up hollow, for the simple fact that we are not fools.
Does the last act violence offend me then? No, not at all. It simply isn’t a powerful enough film to do that. Despite some fine scenes in isolation, the whole of mother! is dead in the water as the work of art it wants to be. My lasting thought of it all is… why is Michelle Pfeiffer not doing more? She is an indestructible gem…
Aronofsky is a difficult beast, because you can’t escape the fact he might deserve to be called pretentious. Such a fierce and singular film-maker, whose hit rate for getting it right is about 1/2. Yet, you can’t deny he has a go! His films are visceral nightmares, even when he pares it down to an earthly tale like The Wrestler. He wants you to feel before thinking. Black Swan pissed people off for this reason too; lucky for him, on that occasion, it mostly worked.
At the artist’s behest, mother! is to be spelled with a small case m, and an exclamation mark. I mean, that is an indicator of this man’s intent. It annoys me, let’s make no bones about it. It also excites me, because he has to live up to it! Opening every critical door available, because if you set yourself up to make that kind of statement, then the work better back it up.
The metaphor is thinly veiled; fooling some at the start that we might be watching a latter day Rosemary’s Baby, or, at the least, an invasion film with clever horror undertones. The mood is marvelously tense in the first hour, as we observe two massively capable actors doing their jobs effortlessly. So watchable are Lawrence and Bardem, that you begin to create your own movie in your mind around what is actually happening. Your own imagination is the star of the first half of this strange film.
It almost isn’t a spoiler anymore, so I will say, that Bardem is God and Lawrence is Gaia, mother earth. Take that onboard from the start and the whole may be more “enjoyble”. Although, Aronofsky doesn’t want you to enjoy it, he wants you to react… remember that! Because in the last hour he will force you to do so, and you probably won’t want to.
As with Requiem For a Dream, you may find yourself applauding the technical skill over the storytelling. With this film as evidence, I am now convinced that his trick is to throw the kitchen sink at you in the hope you will join the dots and find something worth talking about, without him having to bother. If I provide enough spectacle, he muses, they might label me a genius someday. Well, they might. But I won’t.
Yes, it almost makes sense if you crowbar it to, but, come on, it isn’t enough! At least David Lynch makes the weirdness so abstract to defy meaning. Aronofsky is creating dreamscapes that pretend to have relevance and wind up hollow, for the simple fact that we are not fools.
Does the last act violence offend me then? No, not at all. It simply isn’t a powerful enough film to do that. Despite some fine scenes in isolation, the whole of mother! is dead in the water as the work of art it wants to be. My lasting thought of it all is… why is Michelle Pfeiffer not doing more? She is an indestructible gem…
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
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.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dune (2021) in Movies
Oct 24, 2021
The Definitive Film Version for the Fans
Fans of the 1965 Frank Herbert Sci-Fi Fantasy Masterpiece DUNE can finally rejoice - the definitive film version of this novel (at least the first 1/2 of the novel) has made it’s way onto the screen.
Lush, dense, rich, well cast and acted with eye-popping visuals that should be seen on the big screen, Directer Denis Villaneuve’s DUNE is everything that a fan of the book (that would include me) has been waiting for in a film version. It IS the “Peter Jackson LORD OF THE RINGS” version of this book - finally!
The question is, how does this film work for casual fans of the book - or for the myriad moviegoers that have never read the novel it is based on.
And, I’m afraid, the answer there is “not as well”. For Dune is a dense novel, filled with mythology that does go somewhat deep in the movie. This makes the pacing of this film problematic - especially at the beginning, for the novice - but is “deep enough” for those that have read the books.
Let’s start with what works - and that is the visuals that Director Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049) and his crew put on the screen. They are incredible. Unfortunately, most casual on-lookers to this film will decide to check out this 2 hour and 35 minute epic at home for free on HBO MAX, and that would be too bad. This film needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible to totally immerse you in this world.
Villeneuve perfectly cast this film from top to bottom starting with Timothy Chalamet as the hero of this book (and series) Paul Atreides. He brings the right balance of cockiness and unease to Paul who grows into something more than the “perfect prince” as the story progresses.
He is joined by some of the finest performers working today. Rebecca Ferguson and Josh Brolin bring their star power to the roles of Paul’s Mother (who is something more than Paul’s mother) and the head of the military (who is something more than the head of the military). Both of these roles needed to be played by a strong force - and both fill this need admirably.
The always good Oscar Isaac is the right choice for the role of Paul’s father, Duke Leto Atreides, who - by story necessity - is underwritten and, therefore, this film/role does not showcase his talents.
However, Jason Mamoa SHINES as Warrior Duncan Idaho. This is one of my favorite characters from the book and Mamoa brings his “A” game to this charismatic warrior/mentor to Paul. It was the largest pleasant surprise of the performances for me.
Alas, the villains of this piece - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) and his nephew, Beast Rabban Harkonnen (Dave Bautista) are relegated to background “mustache twirling” villains, they were not able to showcase their talents in this film. But, at least, we did not get the “golden speedo” that Sting wore in the 1984 David Lynch film version.
Also, not being able to showcase their talents is Javier Bardem and Zendaya as members of the Freman (the subjugated native people of the “Dune” planet). They are both in this film, briefly, as their characters rise and shine in the 2nd half of the book - so, hopefully, we’ll get to see more of them, then.
Which is the other part of this film that will turn off the casual viewer - it only covers (by necessity) the first half of the book, so only tells half a story with no real emotional payoff. For me, a fan of the books, I was fine with this as I am eagerly anticipating the 2nd film - but as a viewer who is just gonna “check this one out”, I’m not so sure that the visuals of this film will be enough to satisfy them.
Come for the visuals, stay for the performances and the dense story and prepare for Dune: Part 2.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lush, dense, rich, well cast and acted with eye-popping visuals that should be seen on the big screen, Directer Denis Villaneuve’s DUNE is everything that a fan of the book (that would include me) has been waiting for in a film version. It IS the “Peter Jackson LORD OF THE RINGS” version of this book - finally!
The question is, how does this film work for casual fans of the book - or for the myriad moviegoers that have never read the novel it is based on.
And, I’m afraid, the answer there is “not as well”. For Dune is a dense novel, filled with mythology that does go somewhat deep in the movie. This makes the pacing of this film problematic - especially at the beginning, for the novice - but is “deep enough” for those that have read the books.
Let’s start with what works - and that is the visuals that Director Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049) and his crew put on the screen. They are incredible. Unfortunately, most casual on-lookers to this film will decide to check out this 2 hour and 35 minute epic at home for free on HBO MAX, and that would be too bad. This film needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible to totally immerse you in this world.
Villeneuve perfectly cast this film from top to bottom starting with Timothy Chalamet as the hero of this book (and series) Paul Atreides. He brings the right balance of cockiness and unease to Paul who grows into something more than the “perfect prince” as the story progresses.
He is joined by some of the finest performers working today. Rebecca Ferguson and Josh Brolin bring their star power to the roles of Paul’s Mother (who is something more than Paul’s mother) and the head of the military (who is something more than the head of the military). Both of these roles needed to be played by a strong force - and both fill this need admirably.
The always good Oscar Isaac is the right choice for the role of Paul’s father, Duke Leto Atreides, who - by story necessity - is underwritten and, therefore, this film/role does not showcase his talents.
However, Jason Mamoa SHINES as Warrior Duncan Idaho. This is one of my favorite characters from the book and Mamoa brings his “A” game to this charismatic warrior/mentor to Paul. It was the largest pleasant surprise of the performances for me.
Alas, the villains of this piece - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) and his nephew, Beast Rabban Harkonnen (Dave Bautista) are relegated to background “mustache twirling” villains, they were not able to showcase their talents in this film. But, at least, we did not get the “golden speedo” that Sting wore in the 1984 David Lynch film version.
Also, not being able to showcase their talents is Javier Bardem and Zendaya as members of the Freman (the subjugated native people of the “Dune” planet). They are both in this film, briefly, as their characters rise and shine in the 2nd half of the book - so, hopefully, we’ll get to see more of them, then.
Which is the other part of this film that will turn off the casual viewer - it only covers (by necessity) the first half of the book, so only tells half a story with no real emotional payoff. For me, a fan of the books, I was fine with this as I am eagerly anticipating the 2nd film - but as a viewer who is just gonna “check this one out”, I’m not so sure that the visuals of this film will be enough to satisfy them.
Come for the visuals, stay for the performances and the dense story and prepare for Dune: Part 2.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)