Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Lone Survivor (2014) in Movies
Jan 26, 2021 (Updated Feb 2, 2021)
Mark Walhbeg (1 more)
Ben Foster
Never Out of the Fight
Lone Survivor- is a intense action thriller thats based on a true story. Its slow at first, but around halfway in, it gets good.
The plot:In 2005 Afghanistan, Navy SEALs Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg), Michael Murphy (Taylor Kitsch), Danny Dietz (Emile Hirsch) and Matthew "Axe" Axelson (Ben Foster) deploy on a mission of surveillance and to take out Taliban leader Ahmad Shah. Though spotted by goatherds, Luttrell and his team decide not to kill them. But one of the Afghans alerts a group of Taliban fighters to the invaders, and a terrible battle ensues, in which the SEALs find themselves hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned.
Its a must see film.
The plot:In 2005 Afghanistan, Navy SEALs Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg), Michael Murphy (Taylor Kitsch), Danny Dietz (Emile Hirsch) and Matthew "Axe" Axelson (Ben Foster) deploy on a mission of surveillance and to take out Taliban leader Ahmad Shah. Though spotted by goatherds, Luttrell and his team decide not to kill them. But one of the Afghans alerts a group of Taliban fighters to the invaders, and a terrible battle ensues, in which the SEALs find themselves hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned.
Its a must see film.
Bostonian916 (449 KP) rated Force of Nature (2020) in Movies
Jul 10, 2020
It's all about those pesky expectations...
If you have seen a good number of action movies then you know that there are certain things that you should expect from them. Not that the stories don't change a bit, but the sequencing, the pacing, the overall feel and vibe of the movie is going to be quite similar. If that's what you have come to expect, you're on the right track here.
Wasn't a terrible movie. Emile Hirsch did a decent enough job in the titular role. Kate Bosworth held her own. Mel Gibson showed up with what has become his own grit and wit. The story is awkwardly similar to Hurricane Heist in many regards, but gets the job done a little better, probably due to stronger acting in general.
Decent popcorn tosser or background noise.
If you have seen a good number of action movies then you know that there are certain things that you should expect from them. Not that the stories don't change a bit, but the sequencing, the pacing, the overall feel and vibe of the movie is going to be quite similar. If that's what you have come to expect, you're on the right track here.
Wasn't a terrible movie. Emile Hirsch did a decent enough job in the titular role. Kate Bosworth held her own. Mel Gibson showed up with what has become his own grit and wit. The story is awkwardly similar to Hurricane Heist in many regards, but gets the job done a little better, probably due to stronger acting in general.
Decent popcorn tosser or background noise.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
Jane Doe
The Autopsy of Jane Doe- is anethor very good horror movie that hardly no one talks about and knows about. It came in 2016, and i forgot that this movie came out in 2016 cause 2016 was a big year for movies.
The Plot: When father and son coroners investigate the death of a beautiful `Jane Doe', they find increasingly bizarre clues.
It was directed by Andre Overdal, who you may say, well he directed this film called "Trollhunter" in 2010 which was a dark fantasy and was made in the form of a "found footage" mouckumently, highly reccordmend.
Than he went on to direct "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark", which came out early this year and i really liked it.
This film is scary, terrorfying, horrorfying, creepy and overall really good. Also it starred Emile Hirsch and Brian Cox. Their were both really good in it.
This film is a must see.
The Plot: When father and son coroners investigate the death of a beautiful `Jane Doe', they find increasingly bizarre clues.
It was directed by Andre Overdal, who you may say, well he directed this film called "Trollhunter" in 2010 which was a dark fantasy and was made in the form of a "found footage" mouckumently, highly reccordmend.
Than he went on to direct "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark", which came out early this year and i really liked it.
This film is scary, terrorfying, horrorfying, creepy and overall really good. Also it starred Emile Hirsch and Brian Cox. Their were both really good in it.
This film is a must see.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Never Grow Old (2019) in Movies
Apr 1, 2019
Under-the-Radar Good
Set in the 1800’s, when a band of unsavory men muscle their way into a small town, the town’s undertaker has to face the moral decision of reaping the benefits of their destruction or keeping his family and the town safe. It’s a lot harder of a decision than you might think which is part of the reason why I think this movie works so well. I thought I could easily decide one way or another, but by the end of it, I wasn’t so sure.
Acting: 10
I applaud Emile Hirsch for constantly taking on unique roles and stepping outside of comfort zones. In Never Grow Old, he is Pat the Irish undertaker. The role is original in and of itself, but he manages to take it and really make it his own. As Pat, he gives you that “Every Man” feel giving the sense that you would do the same types of things if put in his situation. You can feel his fear in knowing he may have to do some things he doesn’t want to do to protect his family.
Shout-out to John Cusack playing bounty hunter Dutch. He does an outstanding job of really making you hate his guts. By the end of it, you’re ready to seem him get taken out. I respected his performance because it never felt overdone or unbelievable like some actors struggle with when taking on an antagonist role. Think Thanos with a six-shooter.
Beginning: 9
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 9
This film ranks up there in terms of Westerns if nothing else but for its originality. The genre is oversaturated with revenge tales, robberies, and the peacekeeping law. This takes you in an entirely different direction. It’s filled with action, grit, but, more importantly, thought.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 6
Plot: 10
Resolution: 7
Not the ending I was hoping for, but I understand why this directional path was chosen. it was almost unavoidable. I didn’t love it, but I definitely respect it.
Overall: 86
Never Grow Old is one of those hidden gem movies you will be wanting to tell your friends to go see. If you like Westerns, hell even if you don’t, this one is extremely enjoyable and memorable. One of my favorite under-the-radar movies.
Acting: 10
I applaud Emile Hirsch for constantly taking on unique roles and stepping outside of comfort zones. In Never Grow Old, he is Pat the Irish undertaker. The role is original in and of itself, but he manages to take it and really make it his own. As Pat, he gives you that “Every Man” feel giving the sense that you would do the same types of things if put in his situation. You can feel his fear in knowing he may have to do some things he doesn’t want to do to protect his family.
Shout-out to John Cusack playing bounty hunter Dutch. He does an outstanding job of really making you hate his guts. By the end of it, you’re ready to seem him get taken out. I respected his performance because it never felt overdone or unbelievable like some actors struggle with when taking on an antagonist role. Think Thanos with a six-shooter.
Beginning: 9
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 9
This film ranks up there in terms of Westerns if nothing else but for its originality. The genre is oversaturated with revenge tales, robberies, and the peacekeeping law. This takes you in an entirely different direction. It’s filled with action, grit, but, more importantly, thought.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 6
Plot: 10
Resolution: 7
Not the ending I was hoping for, but I understand why this directional path was chosen. it was almost unavoidable. I didn’t love it, but I definitely respect it.
Overall: 86
Never Grow Old is one of those hidden gem movies you will be wanting to tell your friends to go see. If you like Westerns, hell even if you don’t, this one is extremely enjoyable and memorable. One of my favorite under-the-radar movies.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Fairly Tale In Hollywood But Lacks Finesse And Excitement
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a 2019 dramedy (drama/comedy) movie written and directed by Quentin Tarantino and producers David Heyman and Shannon Mcintosh. It was produced by Columbia Pictures, Bona Film Group, Heyday Films, and Visiona Romantica and distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing. The movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad, Margot Robbie, Emile Hirsch and Al Pacino.
In 1969 Los Angeles, actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his best friend and stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) navigate their way through an ever changing industry they hardly recognize anymore. Rick laments to Cliff that his career is over, having been the star of Bounty Law a 1950s Western television series and having trouble landing acting jobs as the lead in films. Dalton dreams of befriending actress Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and her husband, director Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha), who are now his neighbors, in order to resurrect his career. Booth, who lives in a trailer with his pitbull, Brandy, relies on Dalton for work because of rumors he killed his wife, and drives Dalton around town and does other odd jobs for him.
This movie was definitely not what I expected from Quentin Tarantino. It was very slow building, and honestly boring in a lot of ways. I kept waiting for something to happen, but half way through the movie, still nothing really did. The acting however was outstanding. Leonardo DiCaprio was excellent as Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt was a charmer, I think this movie was awesome in its portrayal of Hollywood from that time and was almost like a fairy tale about Hollywood in a way. The ending of the movie really didn't fit with the rest of the film and was controversial, but to me it didn't fit because it hyper violent like most of Tarantino's other films. To me the ending kind of saved the movie but I see how to others it didn't go with it. I usually really like Tarantino's films but I didn't particularly like this one altogether. It kind of was a collection of good scenes and acting but didn't deliver on an actual story that was good or compelling enough for me personally. But then again I didn't like Inglorious Bastards that much, and thought The Hateful 8 could have been better too. But I loved Django Unchained, and the Kill Bill films and pretty much all his other films. So I would give this movie a 6/10, it's above average in a lot of ways but just fell through for me equally in a lot of ways that can't justify a higher rating from me. Maybe it was overrated or over-hyped, or maybe I just had too high of expectations.
In 1969 Los Angeles, actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his best friend and stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) navigate their way through an ever changing industry they hardly recognize anymore. Rick laments to Cliff that his career is over, having been the star of Bounty Law a 1950s Western television series and having trouble landing acting jobs as the lead in films. Dalton dreams of befriending actress Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and her husband, director Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha), who are now his neighbors, in order to resurrect his career. Booth, who lives in a trailer with his pitbull, Brandy, relies on Dalton for work because of rumors he killed his wife, and drives Dalton around town and does other odd jobs for him.
This movie was definitely not what I expected from Quentin Tarantino. It was very slow building, and honestly boring in a lot of ways. I kept waiting for something to happen, but half way through the movie, still nothing really did. The acting however was outstanding. Leonardo DiCaprio was excellent as Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt was a charmer, I think this movie was awesome in its portrayal of Hollywood from that time and was almost like a fairy tale about Hollywood in a way. The ending of the movie really didn't fit with the rest of the film and was controversial, but to me it didn't fit because it hyper violent like most of Tarantino's other films. To me the ending kind of saved the movie but I see how to others it didn't go with it. I usually really like Tarantino's films but I didn't particularly like this one altogether. It kind of was a collection of good scenes and acting but didn't deliver on an actual story that was good or compelling enough for me personally. But then again I didn't like Inglorious Bastards that much, and thought The Hateful 8 could have been better too. But I loved Django Unchained, and the Kill Bill films and pretty much all his other films. So I would give this movie a 6/10, it's above average in a lot of ways but just fell through for me equally in a lot of ways that can't justify a higher rating from me. Maybe it was overrated or over-hyped, or maybe I just had too high of expectations.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019
The film Tarantino was born to make
ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD is the film that Quentin Tarantino was born to make and it is his Masterpiece.
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)