Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Asteroid City (2023) in Movies
Jun 30, 2023
Too "Wes Anderson" For It's Own Good
If you watched the Oscar Nominated Wes Anderson film THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL back in 2014 and thought to yourself - “I want more of this type of thing - only turned up to 11”, then does the BankofMarquis have a film for you.
ASTEROID CITY is the most Wes Anderson film that Wes Anderson has ever filmed.
It is up to you to decide whether that’s a good or bad thing.
A movie within a play within a narration (yes, it’s that “meta”), ASTEROID CITY tells the tale of a group of folks congregating in a timeframe that seems to scream “1950’s America” in a very small, isolated Southwestern American town that seems to scream “Los Alamos, New Mexico” and the life, loves, adventures - and wry comments of the events therein - that these folks encounter/endure all wrapped up in the pastel colored, dry-pan delivered style that has become the signature of a Wes Anderson film.
Populated - as is always the case these days with a Wes Anderson film - by a veritable who’s who of actors who seem to be in on the joke - or at least want to appear that they are part of the “cool kids club”. Names like Anderson regulars Jason Schwartzman, Liev Schrieber, Willem Dafoe and Ed Norton mix in with Anderson newcomers like Tom Hanks, Steve Carrell and Scarlett Johansson succeed more than they fail, but the film falls down from the heights of THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL by becoming “too cute” for it’s own good.
Central to the story is the relationship between Schwartzman’s War Photographer and Johansson’s movie star but this relationship fails to draw the audience in because of the presentational, deadpan style of Anderson’s delivery of the material. Same goes for Hanks’ portrayal of Schwartzman’s father, Carrell’s portrayal of the Motel Manager and Schrieber’s portrayal of another parent at the hotel.
Jeffrey Wright and Tilda Swinton are the most successful of the players as their characters are aloof and mysterious - and the style that Anderson throws at this film leans towards these types of characters…but it leaves the audience at arms’ length.
Special notice should be made of Margot Robbie’s one scene as her character is spoken of, but not seen…until she is.. and her scene is the most interesting in the film.
And…the BankofMarquis hasn’t even mentioned Edward Norton’s playwright (who writes the play that this movie is based on) and Adrian Brody as the Director of the play. The are brought on screen from time to time to archly comment and/or explain the goings-on.
This being an Anderson film, the visuals are stunning and original (but, ironically, familiar to Wes Anderson regulars) and this is the main reason to see this film, it is visually rich and interesting…and different…of a film to look at.
But…Wes Anderson needed to lean away (not into) being…Wes Anderson.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
ASTEROID CITY is the most Wes Anderson film that Wes Anderson has ever filmed.
It is up to you to decide whether that’s a good or bad thing.
A movie within a play within a narration (yes, it’s that “meta”), ASTEROID CITY tells the tale of a group of folks congregating in a timeframe that seems to scream “1950’s America” in a very small, isolated Southwestern American town that seems to scream “Los Alamos, New Mexico” and the life, loves, adventures - and wry comments of the events therein - that these folks encounter/endure all wrapped up in the pastel colored, dry-pan delivered style that has become the signature of a Wes Anderson film.
Populated - as is always the case these days with a Wes Anderson film - by a veritable who’s who of actors who seem to be in on the joke - or at least want to appear that they are part of the “cool kids club”. Names like Anderson regulars Jason Schwartzman, Liev Schrieber, Willem Dafoe and Ed Norton mix in with Anderson newcomers like Tom Hanks, Steve Carrell and Scarlett Johansson succeed more than they fail, but the film falls down from the heights of THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL by becoming “too cute” for it’s own good.
Central to the story is the relationship between Schwartzman’s War Photographer and Johansson’s movie star but this relationship fails to draw the audience in because of the presentational, deadpan style of Anderson’s delivery of the material. Same goes for Hanks’ portrayal of Schwartzman’s father, Carrell’s portrayal of the Motel Manager and Schrieber’s portrayal of another parent at the hotel.
Jeffrey Wright and Tilda Swinton are the most successful of the players as their characters are aloof and mysterious - and the style that Anderson throws at this film leans towards these types of characters…but it leaves the audience at arms’ length.
Special notice should be made of Margot Robbie’s one scene as her character is spoken of, but not seen…until she is.. and her scene is the most interesting in the film.
And…the BankofMarquis hasn’t even mentioned Edward Norton’s playwright (who writes the play that this movie is based on) and Adrian Brody as the Director of the play. The are brought on screen from time to time to archly comment and/or explain the goings-on.
This being an Anderson film, the visuals are stunning and original (but, ironically, familiar to Wes Anderson regulars) and this is the main reason to see this film, it is visually rich and interesting…and different…of a film to look at.
But…Wes Anderson needed to lean away (not into) being…Wes Anderson.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a hardcore Shakespeare fan. One of my bosses at work knows this and let me borrow her copy of this book thinking that it would interest me. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
I do not agree with the main argument of this biography: that William Shakespeare was, in fact, only a pen name for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. No. I do not agree with this claim, like so many other Shakespeare scholars and lovers because the "facts" put forth are just very thinly stretched ideas and concepts that cannot be proven.
This book, instead of pushing me to think about how this fact could even possibly be true, is more about the life of Edward de Vere and how some of the circumstances in his life would be able to loosely connect to the plays Shakespeare had written. In tying in the plays, Anderson thinks he is making a stronger claim for his argument, but is honestly just trying to connect things that are unalike to "prove" what he is thinking. As an English major, I don't really like that way of thinking much.
Most of what he was trying to argue could have been left out and, instead, just have the appendices left in there. In the approximately sixty pages of the four appendices, he stated what over three hundred pages could not. No, I do not agree with the argument he is making, but it seems like it is stronger and more coherent in the appendix.
I want to point out a specific quotation from the Appendix A on page 381 to make a point about this book. It states: The thesis of this book, the "Oxfordian" proposition that Edward de Vere was Shake-speare, is a theory built on circumstantial evidence. There is no single "smoking gun" document that leads one inexorably to the conclusion that de Vere wrote Hamlet, King Lear, the Sonnets, etc." I understand that it is difficult to try to prove a theory that many argue against (myself included), but basing your argument solely on circumstantial evidence is not the way to go. It makes the argument, at least to me, seem less realistic and, in all honesty, difficult to agree with. If you cannot prove someone is guilty solely based on circumstantial evidence, you should not try to prove a complex argument that a famous playwright was not a real person, but, in fact, a pseudonym for another historical figure around the same time.
The "facts" that de Vere's life has similar qualities to the plays written by Shakespeare leading to the thought that de Vere, himself, is Shakespeare is a stretch, and not a convincing one at that.
Overall, I did not enjoy this book and I did not find it convincing at all. It felt more like a history lesson about the background of Edward de Vere rather than any kind of argument towards the idea that he could have been Shakespeare.
In my heart of hearts, I will always believe that William Shakespeare was, in fact, a real man by the name of William Shakespeare, not some made up name for a man who wanted to keep his private life separate from the public.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Stonehearst Asylum (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
In the late 19th century in England, medicine was by today’s standards primitive and at times barbaric. The nature of psychiatric care of the times was even more frightening as maladies that today are treated with medication often resulted in a lifetime of confinement in an Asylum where all manner of treatments which today would be considered torture were used.
In the new thriller “Stonehearst Asylum” a young doctor named Edward Newgate (Jim Sturgess), travels to a remote asylum on Christmas Eve to being a practical study following his time at Oxford.
He is greeted upon his arrival by Silas Lamb (Ben Kingsley, who is eager to size up the new assistant upon his arrival.
Newgate is fascinated by the patients especially one named Eliza (Kate Beckinsale), who shows a grace and range of talents not normally associated with those who have been committed. It is explained that all of those assigned to Stonehearts are from the upper class of society and as such, their maladies have made them outcasts from polite society.
Edward begins to have concerns when he is told by Eliza that he must leave immediately and not return and despite her warnings, he remains and soon makes a startling discovery.
It is learned that a patient named Salt (Michael Caine) is actually the man in charge of the facility and that Lamb is a dangerous psychopath who has imprisoned or killed the asylum staff and has replaced them with his fellow inmates.
Trapped in a world gone mad, Edward must strive to do his duty as a physician to care for those in need, while trying to walk the line between the madness of Lamb and his fellow inmates.
The film is a well-cast and exciting thriller that keeps you entertained without resorting to the standard scares and tricks of other suspense films.
The characters have a complexity and compassion to them as you will find yourself engrossed by the various characters and their situations.
Director Brad Anderson is no stranger to suspense and he has crafted a captivating take that is rich with the visuals of the era yet remaining a character based drama it its core.
The film is based on a short story by Edgar Allen Poe and Mel Gibson is one of the Producers attached to the film which helps underscore how they were able to assemble such a strong cast to the film despite the lack of a major studio to finance or distribute the film.
The film does have some moments that at times make you wonder why some characters did not take more obvious courses of action but yet the film works in spite of this.
In the end the haunting setting and subject matter mesh well with the characters to create a thrilling and entertaining drama that is one of the more enjoyable surprises of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/10/24/stonehearst-asylum/
In the new thriller “Stonehearst Asylum” a young doctor named Edward Newgate (Jim Sturgess), travels to a remote asylum on Christmas Eve to being a practical study following his time at Oxford.
He is greeted upon his arrival by Silas Lamb (Ben Kingsley, who is eager to size up the new assistant upon his arrival.
Newgate is fascinated by the patients especially one named Eliza (Kate Beckinsale), who shows a grace and range of talents not normally associated with those who have been committed. It is explained that all of those assigned to Stonehearts are from the upper class of society and as such, their maladies have made them outcasts from polite society.
Edward begins to have concerns when he is told by Eliza that he must leave immediately and not return and despite her warnings, he remains and soon makes a startling discovery.
It is learned that a patient named Salt (Michael Caine) is actually the man in charge of the facility and that Lamb is a dangerous psychopath who has imprisoned or killed the asylum staff and has replaced them with his fellow inmates.
Trapped in a world gone mad, Edward must strive to do his duty as a physician to care for those in need, while trying to walk the line between the madness of Lamb and his fellow inmates.
The film is a well-cast and exciting thriller that keeps you entertained without resorting to the standard scares and tricks of other suspense films.
The characters have a complexity and compassion to them as you will find yourself engrossed by the various characters and their situations.
Director Brad Anderson is no stranger to suspense and he has crafted a captivating take that is rich with the visuals of the era yet remaining a character based drama it its core.
The film is based on a short story by Edgar Allen Poe and Mel Gibson is one of the Producers attached to the film which helps underscore how they were able to assemble such a strong cast to the film despite the lack of a major studio to finance or distribute the film.
The film does have some moments that at times make you wonder why some characters did not take more obvious courses of action but yet the film works in spite of this.
In the end the haunting setting and subject matter mesh well with the characters to create a thrilling and entertaining drama that is one of the more enjoyable surprises of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/10/24/stonehearst-asylum/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The French Dispatch (2021) in Movies
Jan 4, 2022
Weak Stories Can't Support the STUNNING Visuals
Filmmaker Wes Anderson is an acquired taste. He is one of the most visually stunning filmmakers working today, but his films are often time difficult to grasp and can get lost in their own weirdness.
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Isle of Dogs (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
When an outbreak of “dog-flu” and other dog diseases ravish Japan. Mayor Kobayashi (Kunichi Nomura voice) signs an order to banish all dogs to Trash Island, aka the Isle of Dogs. The island is now home to thousands of dogs who are all scavenging for food. Groups of dogs’ band together to fight for scraps of trash and survive. Then all one day a plane crashes on the island. A boy, Atari (Koyu Rankin voice), has come to the island to find his dog best friend Spots (Liev Schreiber voice). Five dogs find Atari injured buy the crash. The lone stray in the group, Chief (Bryan Cranston voice), has no use for masters and wants to leave the boy. But the rest of the group, Rex (Edward Norton voice), King (Bob Balaban voice), Duke (Jeff Goldblum voice) and Boss (Bill Murray voice) all want help the boy find his best friend. Out voted by the domesticated dogs in the group Chief agrees and they set out on a journey to find Atari’s lost dog on an island full of dogs.
This stop-motion animated film is the latest written and directed film by Wes Anderson (Fantastic Mr. Fox, Moonrise Kingdom, and The Royal Tenenbaums). Anderson’s unique film style and dialog are very present in this Japanese based tale. The stop motion animation is very well done and highlighted throughout the film. From the dogs’ hair moving with the animals to flower petals floating through the air the small details are not missed and expertly done. The dialog was also very much staying with Andersons unique style. It is fast paced and full of subtle comedy. The story is original and fun but also full of meaning and heart. The star studded cast does well in providing their voices to the animated film. The sound track really fits the film well.
The film was not without its struggles. At the beginning of the film it was pointed out that the humans would speak their native language, in most cases Japanese, and the dogs barks had been translated to English. This provides some fun moments throughout the film as there are translators to press conferences and the dog interpreting what the humans say to other dogs. But at times it seemed to me that the humans could understand what the dogs were saying, barking. So it was a little inconsistent. Also one character put into the movie presumably to aid in translation in the film as an American exchange student, Tracy Walker (Greta Gerwig voice). Other than translating parts of the film I don’t know why this character had to be American and could not have been Japanese. It definitely helped the overall theme of the movie to have her there to describe what was happening, given the fact there were no subtitles, but did seem a little forced.
I am definitely a fan of Wes Anderson’s film making and one of a kind style. That comes with certain expectations, which in this case were met. But I also understand that as someone reviewing the film it may make me a little bias. As noted above there a few minor issues I had with the film in general but overall I enjoyed the film and thing fans of Anderson will not be disappointed and neither will those who are just looking for a fun movie. I think overall this is a beautifully made and fun film.
This stop-motion animated film is the latest written and directed film by Wes Anderson (Fantastic Mr. Fox, Moonrise Kingdom, and The Royal Tenenbaums). Anderson’s unique film style and dialog are very present in this Japanese based tale. The stop motion animation is very well done and highlighted throughout the film. From the dogs’ hair moving with the animals to flower petals floating through the air the small details are not missed and expertly done. The dialog was also very much staying with Andersons unique style. It is fast paced and full of subtle comedy. The story is original and fun but also full of meaning and heart. The star studded cast does well in providing their voices to the animated film. The sound track really fits the film well.
The film was not without its struggles. At the beginning of the film it was pointed out that the humans would speak their native language, in most cases Japanese, and the dogs barks had been translated to English. This provides some fun moments throughout the film as there are translators to press conferences and the dog interpreting what the humans say to other dogs. But at times it seemed to me that the humans could understand what the dogs were saying, barking. So it was a little inconsistent. Also one character put into the movie presumably to aid in translation in the film as an American exchange student, Tracy Walker (Greta Gerwig voice). Other than translating parts of the film I don’t know why this character had to be American and could not have been Japanese. It definitely helped the overall theme of the movie to have her there to describe what was happening, given the fact there were no subtitles, but did seem a little forced.
I am definitely a fan of Wes Anderson’s film making and one of a kind style. That comes with certain expectations, which in this case were met. But I also understand that as someone reviewing the film it may make me a little bias. As noted above there a few minor issues I had with the film in general but overall I enjoyed the film and thing fans of Anderson will not be disappointed and neither will those who are just looking for a fun movie. I think overall this is a beautifully made and fun film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Groupers (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one