Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Holdovers (2023) in Movies
Dec 31, 2023
Emotional Rich...and Real
The last time Paul Giamatti starred in an Alexander Payne film (2004’s SIDEWAYS), Payne won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.
Reunited for THE HOLDOVERS, it might be time for Giamatti to win the Oscar.
THE HOLDOVERS tells a well-worn story of a cranky older guy, all-Male Prep School teacher Paul Hunham (Giamatti) who is forced to spend the Christmas holidays sometime in the early 1970’s with arrogant, intelligent, student, Angus Tully (Dominic Sessa). Will they learn to tolerate - and then respect - each other by the time school is back in session? Of course they are.
But it is the journey and not the destination that this film is about - and, boy, what a journey.
Director Payne (working off a screenplay by David Hemingson - WHISKEY CAVALIER) infuses his usual human style into the HOLDOVERS focusing on the characters and driving strong, emotional performances. Sometimes this works (SIDEWAYS, NEBRASKA), sometimes it doesn’t (DOWNSIZING) but in a Payne film it all depends on the strength of the script - and performances - in the film.
Payne was wise to turn over the central character of Paul “Walleye” Hunham to Giamatti who rides the line of curmudgeonly without becoming evil. From the start you can see some sort of humanity under the cranky surface of Paul and when the facade starts to fade away you see a real human being under there. It is, perhaps, the finest performance of Giamatti’s career and expect to see Giamatti’s name called come Oscar Nomination time.
Of course, Giamatti’s performance is only as good as the other actors that he is working against and in newcomer Sessa, Payne has given Giamatti a very good counterpoint indeed - especially since this is Sessa’s Major Motion Picture screen debut. He imbues Tulley with the requisite youthful arrogance but you can sense the vulnerability underneath from a young man who just wants to be accepted - and loved - for who he is.
A joyful surprise of this film is the work of Da’Vine Joy Randolph (ONLY MURDERS IN THE BUILDING) as the cafeteria worker (with a secret tragedy of her own) who volunteers to stay behind to cook for these two. She provides a welcome 3rd leg to this stool and counterbalances both Giamatti’s and Sessa’s performance in a strong - and real - way.
All of this, of course, is due to the fine direction of Payne and the smart, funny and emotionally rich script by Hemingson. They wisely set this piece in the early 1970’s - so there are no cell phones or Internet to draw these people away from each other. They are trapped with one another and must deal with each other in an emotionally satisfying manner.
One of the best films of 2023 (expect to see it in my Top 5 of the year), THE HOLDOVERS is the type of film that the Academy loves - so expect more than 1 Oscar nomination and, just maybe, an Oscar win for Giamatti.
All would be well deserved.
Letter Grade: A
9 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Reunited for THE HOLDOVERS, it might be time for Giamatti to win the Oscar.
THE HOLDOVERS tells a well-worn story of a cranky older guy, all-Male Prep School teacher Paul Hunham (Giamatti) who is forced to spend the Christmas holidays sometime in the early 1970’s with arrogant, intelligent, student, Angus Tully (Dominic Sessa). Will they learn to tolerate - and then respect - each other by the time school is back in session? Of course they are.
But it is the journey and not the destination that this film is about - and, boy, what a journey.
Director Payne (working off a screenplay by David Hemingson - WHISKEY CAVALIER) infuses his usual human style into the HOLDOVERS focusing on the characters and driving strong, emotional performances. Sometimes this works (SIDEWAYS, NEBRASKA), sometimes it doesn’t (DOWNSIZING) but in a Payne film it all depends on the strength of the script - and performances - in the film.
Payne was wise to turn over the central character of Paul “Walleye” Hunham to Giamatti who rides the line of curmudgeonly without becoming evil. From the start you can see some sort of humanity under the cranky surface of Paul and when the facade starts to fade away you see a real human being under there. It is, perhaps, the finest performance of Giamatti’s career and expect to see Giamatti’s name called come Oscar Nomination time.
Of course, Giamatti’s performance is only as good as the other actors that he is working against and in newcomer Sessa, Payne has given Giamatti a very good counterpoint indeed - especially since this is Sessa’s Major Motion Picture screen debut. He imbues Tulley with the requisite youthful arrogance but you can sense the vulnerability underneath from a young man who just wants to be accepted - and loved - for who he is.
A joyful surprise of this film is the work of Da’Vine Joy Randolph (ONLY MURDERS IN THE BUILDING) as the cafeteria worker (with a secret tragedy of her own) who volunteers to stay behind to cook for these two. She provides a welcome 3rd leg to this stool and counterbalances both Giamatti’s and Sessa’s performance in a strong - and real - way.
All of this, of course, is due to the fine direction of Payne and the smart, funny and emotionally rich script by Hemingson. They wisely set this piece in the early 1970’s - so there are no cell phones or Internet to draw these people away from each other. They are trapped with one another and must deal with each other in an emotionally satisfying manner.
One of the best films of 2023 (expect to see it in my Top 5 of the year), THE HOLDOVERS is the type of film that the Academy loves - so expect more than 1 Oscar nomination and, just maybe, an Oscar win for Giamatti.
All would be well deserved.
Letter Grade: A
9 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Matt Damon asked Christian Bale how he had managed to lose almost 70lbs for his role as Ken Miles, following his chubbing up to play Dick Cheney in Vice the previous year. Bale just smiled, shrugged and said, “I didn’t eat”. Such is his reputation for playing real people with 100% commitment, apocryphal or not, I totally believe that is true.
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
authentic (2 more)
easy-to-read
funny
Fun, easy-to-read memoir
Anna Faris' memoir is based mainly on the premise of her podcast, also entitled Unqualified, in which she doles out advice to strangers whom she calls on her show. The idea is that Anna is, in fact, "unqualified" to give advice, but she'll do so anyway based on her life experiences. If you actually listen to her podcast, though, you quickly learn that she's pretty good at giving advice, and that she's also a funny and enjoyable person. The book expands on this, allowing Anna to answer some of the questions posed on her podcast (e.g., Dealbreakers), talk about her childhood and experience breaking in acting, and, yes, of course, her various relationships.
Overall, the book feels pretty real and authentic. You quickly get an idea of the kind of person Anna seems to be--kind, funny, talented, and perhaps a little insecure. I'll admit that since I started listening to Anna's podcast, I've felt a kinship to her, and my review is obviously influenced by that. She's so down-to-earth and really damn funny on her podcast. I also love the idea that she lived in her head for much of her childhood, making up stories (it sounds a little familiar, you see). If you like Anna's podcast, it will be hard not to enjoy her book, although some of the chapters and stories will sound a bit familiar if you're a faithful listener.
My love of Anna was only deepened by reading her book, which is quite readable and broken into simple, short chapters. We get glimpses into Anna's childhood, her first big relationship, a little insight into her big break with "Scary Movie," and more. I relate to her on so many levels. We're both fascinated by other people's lives; never had a big group of female friends; have no patience for small talk; are not wedding people; possess an emotional defense built up from our parents; and enjoy calling the numbers on vehicles to report about truck drivers' good driving. She just happens to be a lovely, famous, wealthy actress, and I'm um, well, yes. Otherwise, we're the same, right? ;)
Of course, the elephant in this review is Anna's recent split from her husband, Chris Pratt, who wrote the foreword to the book, which was apparently revised somewhat for publication. It's hard not to psychoanalyze Anna in light of her recent marriage breakup. You read about her self-admitted inability to admit failure and her tendency to jump from one relationship straight to the next. So much of the book is about Chris and their relationship, and it's a shame that it's a distraction from an enjoyable memoir about a really smart and talented woman, who should stand on her own merit, apart from her (soon-to-be-ex) husband. It's also heartbreaking to read these chapters where it sounds like they truly love each other--and where they got through the premature birth of their son together--and know they are no longer married.
Overall, this is a fun, easy-to-read memoir. If you like Anna, her films, or her podcast, you'll probably enjoy this one. It's a quick read, full of lists, humorous moments, and short chapters, although there are definitely serious pieces, too. It really only made me like her more. 3.5+ stars.
Overall, the book feels pretty real and authentic. You quickly get an idea of the kind of person Anna seems to be--kind, funny, talented, and perhaps a little insecure. I'll admit that since I started listening to Anna's podcast, I've felt a kinship to her, and my review is obviously influenced by that. She's so down-to-earth and really damn funny on her podcast. I also love the idea that she lived in her head for much of her childhood, making up stories (it sounds a little familiar, you see). If you like Anna's podcast, it will be hard not to enjoy her book, although some of the chapters and stories will sound a bit familiar if you're a faithful listener.
My love of Anna was only deepened by reading her book, which is quite readable and broken into simple, short chapters. We get glimpses into Anna's childhood, her first big relationship, a little insight into her big break with "Scary Movie," and more. I relate to her on so many levels. We're both fascinated by other people's lives; never had a big group of female friends; have no patience for small talk; are not wedding people; possess an emotional defense built up from our parents; and enjoy calling the numbers on vehicles to report about truck drivers' good driving. She just happens to be a lovely, famous, wealthy actress, and I'm um, well, yes. Otherwise, we're the same, right? ;)
Of course, the elephant in this review is Anna's recent split from her husband, Chris Pratt, who wrote the foreword to the book, which was apparently revised somewhat for publication. It's hard not to psychoanalyze Anna in light of her recent marriage breakup. You read about her self-admitted inability to admit failure and her tendency to jump from one relationship straight to the next. So much of the book is about Chris and their relationship, and it's a shame that it's a distraction from an enjoyable memoir about a really smart and talented woman, who should stand on her own merit, apart from her (soon-to-be-ex) husband. It's also heartbreaking to read these chapters where it sounds like they truly love each other--and where they got through the premature birth of their son together--and know they are no longer married.
Overall, this is a fun, easy-to-read memoir. If you like Anna, her films, or her podcast, you'll probably enjoy this one. It's a quick read, full of lists, humorous moments, and short chapters, although there are definitely serious pieces, too. It really only made me like her more. 3.5+ stars.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Awakened (House of Night, #8) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
The book opens with Zoey, Stark, Aphrodite, and Darius still on the Isle of Skye. Several factors are adamant about keeping Zoey and Stark there, from their romance to Sgiach's sudden change of perspective about keeping the Isle a secret. All through the book I get the feeling that Sgiach is not as trustworthy or pure of intention as the reader is led to believe, but I imagine that will be a subject for a future book.
Fairly early in the book, a death occurs - I won't say who - but it feels a bit like an author's attempt to cull an entirely-too-long cast list. I have felt for awhile that there were too many characters in this series to keep track of all of them in a single book, but even with the random death occurring every so often, many of the characters are almost non-existent in this book.
I really like the character Rephaim and what the authors are doing with his sub-plot. He has much potential for growth in personality and maturity, and he brings a more adult element to what often feels like a very immature series. I was thrilled with how Nyx helps him at the end, as it shows him that good has its own rewards. His presence has forced Stevie Rae to grow up and make decisions that have a great impact, too. Normally Stevie Rae can be quite annoying, but around Rephaim I like her.
Neferet is of course, beyond revolting. Everything she does makes me want to hurl the book across the room - from her posturing around Kalona and Rephaim, to her false guilt at the funeral, to her simpering over the white bull. Her character is actually my strongest clue that the authors are good at what they do. Only a well-written character can elicit the kind of strong emotion that Neferet brings out in me. They do a good job of showing how the soul-sucking darkness is driving her to madness, even to the point of always underestimating what Zoey and Nyx are capable of. I may be delusional, but I still think that Kalona can be saved from this darkness, even though it's obvious that Neferet can not. His actions seem to be driven by bitterness and a hunger for what is denied him, rather than evil for the sake of evil.
I do love that the authors found a way to continue using Heath in the plotline, as he was always so good for Zoey and probably the only "normal" person in the cast list of supernaturally-gifted beings. He likely will have a long way to go with the direction the authors are taking him, but I imagine I'll keep reading this series through to the end - whenever that is.
Many of the same problems that I had with the series early on still persist - such as sickly-sweet teenage lingo, the condensed time frame of each book, and too many characters with too little time. I find myself wondering which parts of the books are written by which author, as the writing style seems to change sporadically.
I was actually both relieved and saddened by the death at the end, first that it was not someone else dying, but also how it will affect Zoey. Beyond that, there are simply too many characters for me to be emotionally-attached to all of them. So on to the next book - Destined (House of Night Novels).
Fairly early in the book, a death occurs - I won't say who - but it feels a bit like an author's attempt to cull an entirely-too-long cast list. I have felt for awhile that there were too many characters in this series to keep track of all of them in a single book, but even with the random death occurring every so often, many of the characters are almost non-existent in this book.
I really like the character Rephaim and what the authors are doing with his sub-plot. He has much potential for growth in personality and maturity, and he brings a more adult element to what often feels like a very immature series. I was thrilled with how Nyx helps him at the end, as it shows him that good has its own rewards. His presence has forced Stevie Rae to grow up and make decisions that have a great impact, too. Normally Stevie Rae can be quite annoying, but around Rephaim I like her.
Neferet is of course, beyond revolting. Everything she does makes me want to hurl the book across the room - from her posturing around Kalona and Rephaim, to her false guilt at the funeral, to her simpering over the white bull. Her character is actually my strongest clue that the authors are good at what they do. Only a well-written character can elicit the kind of strong emotion that Neferet brings out in me. They do a good job of showing how the soul-sucking darkness is driving her to madness, even to the point of always underestimating what Zoey and Nyx are capable of. I may be delusional, but I still think that Kalona can be saved from this darkness, even though it's obvious that Neferet can not. His actions seem to be driven by bitterness and a hunger for what is denied him, rather than evil for the sake of evil.
I do love that the authors found a way to continue using Heath in the plotline, as he was always so good for Zoey and probably the only "normal" person in the cast list of supernaturally-gifted beings. He likely will have a long way to go with the direction the authors are taking him, but I imagine I'll keep reading this series through to the end - whenever that is.
Many of the same problems that I had with the series early on still persist - such as sickly-sweet teenage lingo, the condensed time frame of each book, and too many characters with too little time. I find myself wondering which parts of the books are written by which author, as the writing style seems to change sporadically.
I was actually both relieved and saddened by the death at the end, first that it was not someone else dying, but also how it will affect Zoey. Beyond that, there are simply too many characters for me to be emotionally-attached to all of them. So on to the next book - Destined (House of Night Novels).
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Pandora's Box (1929) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Pandora’s Box was one of the last films of the silent era, a period of transition to sound which I believe set the art of cinematography back a decade.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Before and Again in Books
Mar 10, 2019
Emotional tale but slow and over-the-top
Driving her five-year-old daughter to a playdate, Mackenzie Cooper's life changes in a moment when she takes her eyes off the road to check her phone's GPS. In that second, she runs a stop sign, and as a result, the other driver and Lily are dead. In the aftermath, Mackenzie finds herself divorced, estranged from her mother and brother, on probation, and moving away from her friends and former life. She reinvents herself in the town of Devon, Vermont, now known as Maggie Reid. There, she does makeup for clients at the Devon Inn and Spa, while living alone in a remote cabin with her pets. Maggie has managed to build a new life for herself in Devon, where no one knows about her life as Mackenzie--plus, she likes her job and she has friends. So when one of them, Grace, finds herself in trouble: her fifteen-year-old son, Chris, is accused of hacking some powerful journalists, Maggie stands by her. It doesn't matter if this could affect her probation or her future. And that's not even the end of the trouble: some surprises from Maggie's past are coming back to her haunt her and threaten the private, quiet life she's worked so hard to create.
So, this was a tough one. Parts of this are a heartbreaking, emotional tale. Other parts I found to be far-fetched and so incredibly slow. The novel almost has two storylines, between Maggie's attempts to find some sort of peace in Devon and then the Grace and Chris tale. For me, it was tough connecting the two, despite the fact that both Grace and Maggie were being forced to confront their pasts and the sensationalism of the media. For most of the book, the two stories run parallel without really connecting, and I found it really hard to care or empathize with Grace at all. Her entire plot is a bit over-the-top. Both she and Maggie were difficult characters--prickly, with their protective shells up.
Of course, the book is also achingly hard to read at points, as Maggie's still reeling from the loss of her daughter. As a parent, I found those parts so difficult to read. But, there was so much talking and introspection from Maggie that it felt like the novel dragged on at points. With Maggie's constant reflection and rehashing, I sometimes just wanted to shake her or move things along. (Also, the endless descriptions of how makeup application worked were far too much for me.)
Still, there were definitely moments where the plot was compelling and moved along, especially near the end. I felt for Maggie, for sure, and enjoyed pieces of this novel. But overall, I found this one slow, disjointed, and hard to get into. Oh and for some reason, being someone even mildly into football, it bothered me that Maggie's probation officer was named Michael Shanahan (a former Redskins coach, among others). When things like that start bothering you, you realize it's probably not the book for you! However, this book is pretty much well-loved by most, so please realize it may have just not been a fit for me.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
So, this was a tough one. Parts of this are a heartbreaking, emotional tale. Other parts I found to be far-fetched and so incredibly slow. The novel almost has two storylines, between Maggie's attempts to find some sort of peace in Devon and then the Grace and Chris tale. For me, it was tough connecting the two, despite the fact that both Grace and Maggie were being forced to confront their pasts and the sensationalism of the media. For most of the book, the two stories run parallel without really connecting, and I found it really hard to care or empathize with Grace at all. Her entire plot is a bit over-the-top. Both she and Maggie were difficult characters--prickly, with their protective shells up.
Of course, the book is also achingly hard to read at points, as Maggie's still reeling from the loss of her daughter. As a parent, I found those parts so difficult to read. But, there was so much talking and introspection from Maggie that it felt like the novel dragged on at points. With Maggie's constant reflection and rehashing, I sometimes just wanted to shake her or move things along. (Also, the endless descriptions of how makeup application worked were far too much for me.)
Still, there were definitely moments where the plot was compelling and moved along, especially near the end. I felt for Maggie, for sure, and enjoyed pieces of this novel. But overall, I found this one slow, disjointed, and hard to get into. Oh and for some reason, being someone even mildly into football, it bothered me that Maggie's probation officer was named Michael Shanahan (a former Redskins coach, among others). When things like that start bothering you, you realize it's probably not the book for you! However, this book is pretty much well-loved by most, so please realize it may have just not been a fit for me.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Everybody Knows (Todos Lo Saben) (2018) in Movies
Mar 13, 2019 (Updated Mar 13, 2019)
Excellent acting from Bardem and (especially) Cruz
I have always liked, but not loved, the English language movies that Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem have been a part of. Part of the issue, I think, is that even though they are dynamic, charismatica and GOOD LOOKING screen presences that embody the very definitioni of the term "MOVIE STAR", they are working in a language that is not their native language, so something, I think, gets lost in translation. So, it was with some excitement that I checked out the Spanish language thriller EVERYBODY KNOWS (Spanish Title: TODOS LO SOBEN).
And...I wasn't disappointed. Both Bardem and (especially) Cruz shine in this familial thriller. Cruz stars as Laura, a native of Spain now living in Argentina. She (and her 2 children) come back to her small village outside of Madrid for the wedding of her younger sister. When a bad thing happens on this trip, Laura must find a way out while dealing with lingering family matters and pressures that come to the fore due to the stress of the situation.
Without putting too much of a fine point on this, Cruz is stunning. Not only is she a beautiful woman who commands the screen whenever she is on, but as her character becomes more and more physically and emotionally torn with "the situation" her raw emotions come out and you see a very real portrayal of a mother who will do anything for her children. This performance is (was?) Academy Award worthy - it is that good. This is a strong actress at the top of her game.
She is more than matched on screen by the less showey, nuanced - yet fun, at times - performance of her real life husband, Javier Bardem, who plays a person from Lara's past that is drawn into the events. Bardem won an Oscar for playing the mysterious, scary hitman, Anton Chigurh in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MAN. This was a a character who barely spoke. In this film, he plays a lively, extroverted fun-loving person who's whole personae is called into question, quite the contrast to the English language characters I have, heretofore, known him for.
Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi (best known for THE SEPARATION) does a good job driving the story - once it gets started - he is sure handed in handling both the suspense/action moments of this movie as well as the family drama during the "many people talking around a table" scenes. This film led off the Cannes Film Festival last year and was greatly lauded.
It's not a perfect film. My friend who saw the movie with me stated (correctly) that he had never seen a movie that "started so poorly but corrected itself and finished as an excellent film" like this one did. The first 1/2 hour to 45 minutes of this 2 hour and 15 minute film is filled with introducing the myriad of characters associated with this family (and the mystery that enfolds), but it is a scattershot approach to film making and character introduction and Farhadi misses the mark more than he hits the mark during this period.
But once the mystery unfolds - and Cruz and Bardem's characters (and acting) kicks into high gear - things get quite good, quite tense and quite engrossing. Well worth the time to check it out.
Letter Grade B+: (C for the first 45 minutes, A for the last hour and a half)
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I wasn't disappointed. Both Bardem and (especially) Cruz shine in this familial thriller. Cruz stars as Laura, a native of Spain now living in Argentina. She (and her 2 children) come back to her small village outside of Madrid for the wedding of her younger sister. When a bad thing happens on this trip, Laura must find a way out while dealing with lingering family matters and pressures that come to the fore due to the stress of the situation.
Without putting too much of a fine point on this, Cruz is stunning. Not only is she a beautiful woman who commands the screen whenever she is on, but as her character becomes more and more physically and emotionally torn with "the situation" her raw emotions come out and you see a very real portrayal of a mother who will do anything for her children. This performance is (was?) Academy Award worthy - it is that good. This is a strong actress at the top of her game.
She is more than matched on screen by the less showey, nuanced - yet fun, at times - performance of her real life husband, Javier Bardem, who plays a person from Lara's past that is drawn into the events. Bardem won an Oscar for playing the mysterious, scary hitman, Anton Chigurh in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MAN. This was a a character who barely spoke. In this film, he plays a lively, extroverted fun-loving person who's whole personae is called into question, quite the contrast to the English language characters I have, heretofore, known him for.
Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi (best known for THE SEPARATION) does a good job driving the story - once it gets started - he is sure handed in handling both the suspense/action moments of this movie as well as the family drama during the "many people talking around a table" scenes. This film led off the Cannes Film Festival last year and was greatly lauded.
It's not a perfect film. My friend who saw the movie with me stated (correctly) that he had never seen a movie that "started so poorly but corrected itself and finished as an excellent film" like this one did. The first 1/2 hour to 45 minutes of this 2 hour and 15 minute film is filled with introducing the myriad of characters associated with this family (and the mystery that enfolds), but it is a scattershot approach to film making and character introduction and Farhadi misses the mark more than he hits the mark during this period.
But once the mystery unfolds - and Cruz and Bardem's characters (and acting) kicks into high gear - things get quite good, quite tense and quite engrossing. Well worth the time to check it out.
Letter Grade B+: (C for the first 45 minutes, A for the last hour and a half)
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Fisherman's Friends (2019) in Movies
Mar 18, 2019 (Updated Mar 18, 2019)
Formulaic, clichéd, enjoyable bit of fun
Hot on the heels of Fighting with my Family comes yet another true story that I feel I should have known more about beforehand, but didn't. Fisherman's Friends tells the story of a group of singing Cornish fishermen who, in 2010, managed to land themselves not only a top 10 album but an appearance on Glastonbury's pyramid stage! The plot follows a much more formulaic and clichéd approach than Fighting with my Family does though, not quite managing to come close to the high bar that set, but is enjoyable enough all the same.
We begin by following a group of four men heading out on their stag do in the beautiful town of Port Isaac in Cornwall. A&R man Danny (Daniel Mays), his annoying record exec boss Troy (Noel Clarke) and a couple of their colleagues all arrive in the small fishing town for the weekend and immediately find themselves on the wrong side of the locals - driving the wrong way down a narrow one way street, foolishly ordering lager instead of bitter in the local pub (they don't serve fizzy drinks there) and needing to be rescued after their careless weekend enjoyment finds them all stranded at sea. City types who think they know it all, but haven't got a clue.
The fishermen that rescued the lads turn out to be part of a popular local singing group - singing sea shanties together while working out at sea and regularly putting on small concerts for the locals down on the harbour. It's while performing one of those gigs that Danny and his friends come across them. After a few moments of watching, Troy tells Danny that he wants him to go over and sign them up, and that he's not to take no for an answer. Off he goes, not knowing that it's all just a big joke, while his three colleagues all return home. Danny is left behind, struggling to try and convince the group that their unique sound is going to make them all big stars.
Out of the group of fishermen, only a handful of them are really explored and fleshed out as characters in any kind of way, with the majority of them simply fading into the background - backing singers if you will. Jim (James Purefoy) and his father Jago (David Hayman), are the main focus of the movie, along with Jim's single-mum daughter Alwyn (Tuppence Middleton), who Danny eventually begins to strike up a friendship with, and her young daughter. One of the other fishermen runs the local pub at the heart of the community, along with his wife, but is struggling to make ends meet in a sub-plot which comes to a head later on in the movie.
Fisherman's Friends is a movie full of clichés - the city slicker who initially doesn't understand the simple life, the familiar rom-com couple who start off disliking one another, but will clearly be falling madly in love before long, annoying city types who don't even look like they know how to tie their own shoelaces, let alone become successfully music moguls. But, despite it all, the movie works considerably well. The relationship and chemistry between Danny and Alwyn is believable, and the highs and lows that the group go through on their journey to stardom is both heartwarming and fun in equal measure. It's the kind of reliable movie you could quite happily sit and watch on the TV, on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
We begin by following a group of four men heading out on their stag do in the beautiful town of Port Isaac in Cornwall. A&R man Danny (Daniel Mays), his annoying record exec boss Troy (Noel Clarke) and a couple of their colleagues all arrive in the small fishing town for the weekend and immediately find themselves on the wrong side of the locals - driving the wrong way down a narrow one way street, foolishly ordering lager instead of bitter in the local pub (they don't serve fizzy drinks there) and needing to be rescued after their careless weekend enjoyment finds them all stranded at sea. City types who think they know it all, but haven't got a clue.
The fishermen that rescued the lads turn out to be part of a popular local singing group - singing sea shanties together while working out at sea and regularly putting on small concerts for the locals down on the harbour. It's while performing one of those gigs that Danny and his friends come across them. After a few moments of watching, Troy tells Danny that he wants him to go over and sign them up, and that he's not to take no for an answer. Off he goes, not knowing that it's all just a big joke, while his three colleagues all return home. Danny is left behind, struggling to try and convince the group that their unique sound is going to make them all big stars.
Out of the group of fishermen, only a handful of them are really explored and fleshed out as characters in any kind of way, with the majority of them simply fading into the background - backing singers if you will. Jim (James Purefoy) and his father Jago (David Hayman), are the main focus of the movie, along with Jim's single-mum daughter Alwyn (Tuppence Middleton), who Danny eventually begins to strike up a friendship with, and her young daughter. One of the other fishermen runs the local pub at the heart of the community, along with his wife, but is struggling to make ends meet in a sub-plot which comes to a head later on in the movie.
Fisherman's Friends is a movie full of clichés - the city slicker who initially doesn't understand the simple life, the familiar rom-com couple who start off disliking one another, but will clearly be falling madly in love before long, annoying city types who don't even look like they know how to tie their own shoelaces, let alone become successfully music moguls. But, despite it all, the movie works considerably well. The relationship and chemistry between Danny and Alwyn is believable, and the highs and lows that the group go through on their journey to stardom is both heartwarming and fun in equal measure. It's the kind of reliable movie you could quite happily sit and watch on the TV, on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Forced premise (2 more)
Storytelling & writing that drives you insane
Not interesting
You'll probably love it or hate it
Dustin Tillman is a psychologist in Ohio; he's married with two sons and rarely even thinks about the horrific incident of his childhood, when his adopted brother, Rusty, murdered Dustin's parents and his aunt and uncle. Dustin was just a child then, and his brother was arrested largely on the testimony of Dustin and his cousin Kate and the 1980s' fears over satanism. But now Dustin learns that Rusty is being released from prison; his appeal has been granted, and his verdict overturned based on DNA evidence. Meanwhile, Dustin is struggling with one of his patients, Aqil, a former police officer who believes there is a link among a group of drunken college boys who have died by drowning. As more and more things start going wrong in Dustin's life, he gets drawn into Aqil's paranoia-- and he threatens to bring down his family with him.
This book had an interesting premise: linking two sets of crimes in the past and present, but I felt like that premise was a little forced/falsified, and I never got into the book, or the characters. As a reader, you'll probably find the way it's written either brilliant or incredibly irritating, and I fell squarely into the irritating camp. There are very abrupt chapter switches between the present and the past that are quite annoying, making it difficult to tell exactly where you are in time. The changes in point of view aren't as bad, allowing you to hear from Dustin, his son, and others, but it still gets confusing quickly. (Sidebar: doesn't anyone just tell a linear story from one person's point of view anymore?)
Even more, the story is written quite like the characters think--which is fine in theory--for instance, this includes Dustin's tendency to just stop mid-sentence, something his family teases him about. After a bit you get somewhat used to the random sentences that end mid-thought, or the weird white spaces, but it's still strange. Other parts are the story are split into two or three parts on a page and told almost in parallel, causing you to flip back and forth to read each set. I never was quite sure of the point of that. Yes, people in the novel are going crazy and on drugs. I could get that concept and not have to flip back and forth constantly to read chunks of the story. It's one of those storytelling devices that, to me, could be amazing, but just winds up driving you slightly insane.
This novel is also very dark. Again, that's fine. I just finished The Roanoke Girls, which was incredibly dark, and loved it. But this one: I just didn't find it that interesting. I found myself finishing it more out of a vague curiosity and duty than anything else. I figured out one of the main plot points pretty on and wasn't engaged with any of the characters. Then, after all of this, the ending is awful and vague, and there's no resolution, and I found myself just throwing the whole thing down in disgust. Definitely not one of my favorites. I can see the potential for others, but it wasn't for me.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you) in return for an unbiased review.
This book had an interesting premise: linking two sets of crimes in the past and present, but I felt like that premise was a little forced/falsified, and I never got into the book, or the characters. As a reader, you'll probably find the way it's written either brilliant or incredibly irritating, and I fell squarely into the irritating camp. There are very abrupt chapter switches between the present and the past that are quite annoying, making it difficult to tell exactly where you are in time. The changes in point of view aren't as bad, allowing you to hear from Dustin, his son, and others, but it still gets confusing quickly. (Sidebar: doesn't anyone just tell a linear story from one person's point of view anymore?)
Even more, the story is written quite like the characters think--which is fine in theory--for instance, this includes Dustin's tendency to just stop mid-sentence, something his family teases him about. After a bit you get somewhat used to the random sentences that end mid-thought, or the weird white spaces, but it's still strange. Other parts are the story are split into two or three parts on a page and told almost in parallel, causing you to flip back and forth to read each set. I never was quite sure of the point of that. Yes, people in the novel are going crazy and on drugs. I could get that concept and not have to flip back and forth constantly to read chunks of the story. It's one of those storytelling devices that, to me, could be amazing, but just winds up driving you slightly insane.
This novel is also very dark. Again, that's fine. I just finished The Roanoke Girls, which was incredibly dark, and loved it. But this one: I just didn't find it that interesting. I found myself finishing it more out of a vague curiosity and duty than anything else. I figured out one of the main plot points pretty on and wasn't engaged with any of the characters. Then, after all of this, the ending is awful and vague, and there's no resolution, and I found myself just throwing the whole thing down in disgust. Definitely not one of my favorites. I can see the potential for others, but it wasn't for me.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you) in return for an unbiased review.
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Mom and Dad (2018) in Movies
Jan 27, 2018
Nicholas Cage (2 more)
Great idea
Superb dialogue
Some damn fine fun with Cage and Blair
Contains spoilers, click to show
Two people who you should be able to count on for your safety as a child are your Mother and Father. But that doesn' ring true in this amazing little film by writer/director Brian Taylor.
The film's opening sequence shows a woman in a minivan with a baby in the backseat. The radio plays some strange static and out of nowhere she looks back to the infant and exits the vehicle. Leaving the baby and the van to meet their demise via an oncoming train.
What follows is pure genius and insanity that is topped by Nick Cage doing what Nick Cage does best. Losing it onscreen with a fever that only my he can provide.
Selma Blair holds her own as Cafe's seemingly mild mannered wife who turns on a dime and joins him in the craziness with a certain flair comparable to Cages insane bravado.
The kids, played by Anne Winters and Zachary Arthur, fight their parents with some Home Alonish antics that prove to serve them well.
No one can fully say what it is that officially makes the parents around the world turn on their kids. But it has something to do with white noise and static on televisions and radios across the planet. Parents instinct to protect their young like a bear is replaced with the feeling off ultimate anger and insanity.
In one scene, Blair is at the hospital coaching her sister through birth. The the is born and handed to the mother and a monitor goes all static filled and noisy. The sister clutches the baby tightly, beginnng to cut off the airwaves and choking the child. Blair rips the newborn from her sister in an attempt to protect her. But something driving her sister forces her to stand upright and destroy the baby. She ultimately fails and is sedated.
The best performance in this film goes hands down to Nicholas Cage. Who freaks out like only Cage can. And even though his appeaance resembles a slightly bloated version of Marilyn Manson. His ability to use his expression and booming voice to command insanity is off the charts amazing.
I recall a scene where the kids are locked in the basement trying to escape their folks. And Blair and Cage are looking for a way to break down the door. Nicholas bangs on the door, shaking and screaming a line i will never forget "Your motherfucking Mother said to open this goddamn door, Motherfuckers!!!! Youre going to open this motherfucking door!!!!". Cage goes one way Blair goes another... she gets a reciprocating saw and brings it to the door. Her line, while simple, is unforgettable. "It's called a Saws all because it saws all,".
She begins hacking and at the door as Cage is upstairs looking for his gun... he hears shots and runs downstairs, finding Blair sitting on the floor nursing a fresh gunshot to the arm. He freaks out and explains the gun to his wife who quotes some stats about kids hurting themselves and others with handguns. Irony at its finest.
All in all, this movie never gets boring after the parents begin to try and kill their kids. It's only better when Cages character Brent's folks show up and attempt to kill him. Lance Henricksons performance as the father is extreme and awesome.
Watch this movie if you have a spare 90 minutes, i promise you it will motherfucking not disappoint, Motherfuckers:)
The film's opening sequence shows a woman in a minivan with a baby in the backseat. The radio plays some strange static and out of nowhere she looks back to the infant and exits the vehicle. Leaving the baby and the van to meet their demise via an oncoming train.
What follows is pure genius and insanity that is topped by Nick Cage doing what Nick Cage does best. Losing it onscreen with a fever that only my he can provide.
Selma Blair holds her own as Cafe's seemingly mild mannered wife who turns on a dime and joins him in the craziness with a certain flair comparable to Cages insane bravado.
The kids, played by Anne Winters and Zachary Arthur, fight their parents with some Home Alonish antics that prove to serve them well.
No one can fully say what it is that officially makes the parents around the world turn on their kids. But it has something to do with white noise and static on televisions and radios across the planet. Parents instinct to protect their young like a bear is replaced with the feeling off ultimate anger and insanity.
In one scene, Blair is at the hospital coaching her sister through birth. The the is born and handed to the mother and a monitor goes all static filled and noisy. The sister clutches the baby tightly, beginnng to cut off the airwaves and choking the child. Blair rips the newborn from her sister in an attempt to protect her. But something driving her sister forces her to stand upright and destroy the baby. She ultimately fails and is sedated.
The best performance in this film goes hands down to Nicholas Cage. Who freaks out like only Cage can. And even though his appeaance resembles a slightly bloated version of Marilyn Manson. His ability to use his expression and booming voice to command insanity is off the charts amazing.
I recall a scene where the kids are locked in the basement trying to escape their folks. And Blair and Cage are looking for a way to break down the door. Nicholas bangs on the door, shaking and screaming a line i will never forget "Your motherfucking Mother said to open this goddamn door, Motherfuckers!!!! Youre going to open this motherfucking door!!!!". Cage goes one way Blair goes another... she gets a reciprocating saw and brings it to the door. Her line, while simple, is unforgettable. "It's called a Saws all because it saws all,".
She begins hacking and at the door as Cage is upstairs looking for his gun... he hears shots and runs downstairs, finding Blair sitting on the floor nursing a fresh gunshot to the arm. He freaks out and explains the gun to his wife who quotes some stats about kids hurting themselves and others with handguns. Irony at its finest.
All in all, this movie never gets boring after the parents begin to try and kill their kids. It's only better when Cages character Brent's folks show up and attempt to kill him. Lance Henricksons performance as the father is extreme and awesome.
Watch this movie if you have a spare 90 minutes, i promise you it will motherfucking not disappoint, Motherfuckers:)