Search
Marie Claire Magazine US
Lifestyle and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Subscribe now and get INSTANT access to the latest issue! Oscar-winning actress Emma Stone slips...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated La La Land (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“It’s very nostalgic – will people like it?”
A little film. Not sure whether you might have heard of it yet? Damien Chazelle has followed up his astonishingly proficient “Whiplash” – my top film of 2015 – with a sure-fire theatre-filler in “La La Land”. The old-fashioned musical extravaganza is back, and back with style!
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.
The story. (3 more)
The writing.
Thomas Fawkes.
The emotions I went through reading this. (Yes it's here twice for a reason.)
A gripping, heartfelt historical read that will take you on an adventure.
When I first picked up Fawkes by Nadine Brandes, it was for a blog tour that I was lucky enough to get (thank you so much!). I started reading it and only got three chapters read before I had to put it down because I just. Could. Not. Get. Into. It. I'm awfully glad that I picked it back up to actually reread the first three chapters and finish the book because this is my favorite book of September.
Legit, this is a five-star read for me. There's so much sarcasm, humor, history packed into this little story that I just didn't want it to end. If Nadine Brandes ever creates a second book regarding this storyline, I will be the first person to buy it and support it. Because dang woman, you have a way to make me tear up and then get all angry at a character in a matter of pages.
Okay, let's talk about some of these humorous quotes that I just can't get over.
"If you do not agree to all my terms, Thomas Fawkes, then I shall tell my guardian that you forced yourself upon me and - after he castrates you - he will string you up on the gallows without a tongue!" Okay Emma, he knows not to mess with you. You strong and independent amazing human being. I think I love you. (Can you actually fall in love with a fictional character?)
" ' There's no we,' Kit muttered in Jack's ear. 'Percy didn't even detect an intruder - the boy did.' " - SHOTS FIRED!
" 'Annika! Gabriel! Do you want to turn to stone?' " I just think this is so funny but it's true. Like you keep messing with that plagued rat, you ain't gonna look much different.
Can we talk about how descriptive Nadine is with things?! Like for real, I haven't heard anybody talking about that! So, without further adieu here are some of my favorite descriptive quotes:
"The darkness twisted invisible chains around my chest." Holy poopers. Like dang. This is a great representation of anxiety if anybody wants to know.
" 'His past is not without its bloodstains.' I joined him at the window. The grime rested too thickly for us to see out into the night. Another thing for me to clean upon the morrow. ' Should we do something?' 'Our fists are no match for a rabid mutt's teeth. We must leave a man's actions to his one conscience.' " Okay, I got chills when reading this. This is one serious moment but at the same time a jab at how gross London used to be.
"A line of freckles ascended from her left upper lip and ended beneath her eye... like a constellation on a night sky." I dig it and what a way to describe somebody's feature. I wish my husband was all gooey like Thomas Fawkes when it came to Emma.
The next few quotes are moments where I had to stop reading and just think, because they hit me with a burning passion for making me emotional.
"He said that he must bring on only those men who were necessary to the plot's fulfillment. The men who were irreplaceable. That spoke volumes about each man he'd chosen. Because he'd chosen me." Thomas is wanted, not just by his father but by a group of men that become his family. I feel you Thomas, you emotional man.
"I wanted my mask because I was ashamed of what people saw when they looked at me. I hated being defined by my plague and I was sick of being helpless. I wanted a future." STAY AWAY FROM MY THOMAS YOU NUGGETS. I KNOW KARATE AND I WILL USE IT. But seriously, why you gotta be so mean?
"If I was as inconspicuous as Catesby said I would be... why not simply kill the king on my own? In fact, why not turn his masquerade into an assassination?" Thomas you smart man. But don't go getting yourself killed. Emma (and I) need you to survive and stay with her (us).
Legit, this is a five-star read for me. There's so much sarcasm, humor, history packed into this little story that I just didn't want it to end. If Nadine Brandes ever creates a second book regarding this storyline, I will be the first person to buy it and support it. Because dang woman, you have a way to make me tear up and then get all angry at a character in a matter of pages.
Okay, let's talk about some of these humorous quotes that I just can't get over.
"If you do not agree to all my terms, Thomas Fawkes, then I shall tell my guardian that you forced yourself upon me and - after he castrates you - he will string you up on the gallows without a tongue!" Okay Emma, he knows not to mess with you. You strong and independent amazing human being. I think I love you. (Can you actually fall in love with a fictional character?)
" ' There's no we,' Kit muttered in Jack's ear. 'Percy didn't even detect an intruder - the boy did.' " - SHOTS FIRED!
" 'Annika! Gabriel! Do you want to turn to stone?' " I just think this is so funny but it's true. Like you keep messing with that plagued rat, you ain't gonna look much different.
Can we talk about how descriptive Nadine is with things?! Like for real, I haven't heard anybody talking about that! So, without further adieu here are some of my favorite descriptive quotes:
"The darkness twisted invisible chains around my chest." Holy poopers. Like dang. This is a great representation of anxiety if anybody wants to know.
" 'His past is not without its bloodstains.' I joined him at the window. The grime rested too thickly for us to see out into the night. Another thing for me to clean upon the morrow. ' Should we do something?' 'Our fists are no match for a rabid mutt's teeth. We must leave a man's actions to his one conscience.' " Okay, I got chills when reading this. This is one serious moment but at the same time a jab at how gross London used to be.
"A line of freckles ascended from her left upper lip and ended beneath her eye... like a constellation on a night sky." I dig it and what a way to describe somebody's feature. I wish my husband was all gooey like Thomas Fawkes when it came to Emma.
The next few quotes are moments where I had to stop reading and just think, because they hit me with a burning passion for making me emotional.
"He said that he must bring on only those men who were necessary to the plot's fulfillment. The men who were irreplaceable. That spoke volumes about each man he'd chosen. Because he'd chosen me." Thomas is wanted, not just by his father but by a group of men that become his family. I feel you Thomas, you emotional man.
"I wanted my mask because I was ashamed of what people saw when they looked at me. I hated being defined by my plague and I was sick of being helpless. I wanted a future." STAY AWAY FROM MY THOMAS YOU NUGGETS. I KNOW KARATE AND I WILL USE IT. But seriously, why you gotta be so mean?
"If I was as inconspicuous as Catesby said I would be... why not simply kill the king on my own? In fact, why not turn his masquerade into an assassination?" Thomas you smart man. But don't go getting yourself killed. Emma (and I) need you to survive and stay with her (us).
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Favourite (2018) in Movies
Jan 18, 2019 (Updated Jan 18, 2019)
Fantastic script (3 more)
Brilliant performances
Clever cinematography
Insanely detailed set design
Strange But Brilliant
To be honest, I am not a huge fan of Yorgos Lanthimos' other movies, I also have a hatred for most period pieces. I am however a huge fan of Olivia Colman and it was her that swayed me to go and see this movie and I am very glad that I did.
Colman absolutely nails her role as a grief stricken, overly dramatic, short tempered Queen Anne. Her acting ability is diverse enough that she can take you from a side splitting remark one moment to a genuinely saddening comment the next and do it flawlessly and convincingly. Rachel Weisz is also pretty good here as Queen Anne's original favourite lady, Anne may be the Queen, but it is Lady Marlborough who is really running the show.
The biggest surpise for me was Emma Stone's performance. I don't hate Emma Stone, but I do feel like she plays the same goofy studenty American girl in everything that she is in, but here she is actually acting and her English accent was brilliant throughout the whole movie. It proves how much a good director is able to get out of their actors performance-wise.
The other main star here is the script. It is jam packed with brilliantly crass lines that are fired out so quickly and with such venom from the respective characters that you really feel the words being said. It is one of the best written scripts I have seen in a film in a while.
I'm not normally one to gush about set design, but my God... This movie goes all out with it's backdrops. I know that for the exterior shots, they shot on location at real palaces and castles and used mostly natural lighting at least for the daytime scenes. While these scenes are impressive, it is the interior scenes that are really mesmerising. The level of detail on the background elements in this movie is insane and anywhere that you look onscreen, there is something new and interesting to catch your eye.
The other great thing about this movie, is that even if you don't care about the competition for favour that is at the centre of the movie's plot, there is enough going on with the filmmaking itself to keep your attention throughout. The odd looking fish eye lenses that Lanthimos uses and the bizarre shot compositions looking up from waist-height at the actors is as fascinating to look at as it is weird. It gives the movie a unique feel that sets it apart from any other period piece I have seen.
Overall, I got way more out of The Favourite than I expected to going in. The movie is funny, witty and pretty unique. The attention to detail is impressive and the performances are great, with Olivia Colman's alone making the film worth the price of admission. The script is great and the direction is oddly interesting. Do be warned though; this movie is very weird and definitely not your typical period piece movie.
Colman absolutely nails her role as a grief stricken, overly dramatic, short tempered Queen Anne. Her acting ability is diverse enough that she can take you from a side splitting remark one moment to a genuinely saddening comment the next and do it flawlessly and convincingly. Rachel Weisz is also pretty good here as Queen Anne's original favourite lady, Anne may be the Queen, but it is Lady Marlborough who is really running the show.
The biggest surpise for me was Emma Stone's performance. I don't hate Emma Stone, but I do feel like she plays the same goofy studenty American girl in everything that she is in, but here she is actually acting and her English accent was brilliant throughout the whole movie. It proves how much a good director is able to get out of their actors performance-wise.
The other main star here is the script. It is jam packed with brilliantly crass lines that are fired out so quickly and with such venom from the respective characters that you really feel the words being said. It is one of the best written scripts I have seen in a film in a while.
I'm not normally one to gush about set design, but my God... This movie goes all out with it's backdrops. I know that for the exterior shots, they shot on location at real palaces and castles and used mostly natural lighting at least for the daytime scenes. While these scenes are impressive, it is the interior scenes that are really mesmerising. The level of detail on the background elements in this movie is insane and anywhere that you look onscreen, there is something new and interesting to catch your eye.
The other great thing about this movie, is that even if you don't care about the competition for favour that is at the centre of the movie's plot, there is enough going on with the filmmaking itself to keep your attention throughout. The odd looking fish eye lenses that Lanthimos uses and the bizarre shot compositions looking up from waist-height at the actors is as fascinating to look at as it is weird. It gives the movie a unique feel that sets it apart from any other period piece I have seen.
Overall, I got way more out of The Favourite than I expected to going in. The movie is funny, witty and pretty unique. The attention to detail is impressive and the performances are great, with Olivia Colman's alone making the film worth the price of admission. The script is great and the direction is oddly interesting. Do be warned though; this movie is very weird and definitely not your typical period piece movie.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 26, 2021
Until going back to the cinema this year I'd not watched a trailer or read any reviews of Cruella. When I finally saw it on the big screen, I was excited... but also terrified of the Disney live action antics.
Estella is a young aspiring designer with a wild side and an even wilder hairstyle. Making friends with a ragtag duo in London, she sets up in the shadows of a high profile department store that sets her down a path with a dark future.
Of all the live action films recently this has definitely given me some hope (which I'm sure I'll regret saying at some point). It starts the set-up of what we know Cruella to be. Origin story, villain, you know I'm in. And I loved the way that she wasn't inherently evil, it was the circumstances around her that created it by twisting her wild side.
My two favourite Emmas in one movie, it's a dream. Let's start with the lead, Emma Stone. It must have been amazing fun doing this role, at least it looked like that was the case and she could really let loose. You see Estella's spark of creativity, the embers of the young Cruella inside her even as an adult, and the blazing fire as the evil starts to peek through. I loved how they managed to get some nods in to the animated movie, and how she managed to capture them perfectly. If you asked me to cast someone in this role, I'm not sure I could have come up with someone better.
Emma Thompson was a surprise to me, it wasn't until the trailer that I realised she was in this. The instant I saw her I knew that I was going to love her. The Baroness is a force to be reckoned with and you can see the influence that she has. Ruthless and driven, every scene felt right.
Henchmen next, and of course I'm using "henchmen" in its loosest terms for Jasper and Horace. Another perfect vision of what's to come. Joel Fry as Jasper makes for an interesting take on the story, and while I can see why it's there, and I generally enjoy Fry's acting, I did not love Jasper quite as much as everyone around him. Particularly as he was paired with Paul Walter Hauser. Hauser is a great actor, if a little typecast in the slightly bumbling characters. His take on Horace is my favourite thing about this whole film. As a double act with Wink it was glorious and understated humour. I'd happily sit through a film entirely of them just being them.
I can't really talk Cruella without talking costume design. If this doesn't win all the awards then quite frankly it's complete insanity. Everything design-wise in this was amazing as far as I'm concerned. Cruella's hair changes and dresses blew me away. Eccentric, flamboyant, and just the right amount of crazy.
I'm not sure how I feel about the possibility of a sequel, but I really enjoyed this one. Everything from the film itself, to the posters, it ticked all the boxes.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/06/cruella-movie-review.html
Estella is a young aspiring designer with a wild side and an even wilder hairstyle. Making friends with a ragtag duo in London, she sets up in the shadows of a high profile department store that sets her down a path with a dark future.
Of all the live action films recently this has definitely given me some hope (which I'm sure I'll regret saying at some point). It starts the set-up of what we know Cruella to be. Origin story, villain, you know I'm in. And I loved the way that she wasn't inherently evil, it was the circumstances around her that created it by twisting her wild side.
My two favourite Emmas in one movie, it's a dream. Let's start with the lead, Emma Stone. It must have been amazing fun doing this role, at least it looked like that was the case and she could really let loose. You see Estella's spark of creativity, the embers of the young Cruella inside her even as an adult, and the blazing fire as the evil starts to peek through. I loved how they managed to get some nods in to the animated movie, and how she managed to capture them perfectly. If you asked me to cast someone in this role, I'm not sure I could have come up with someone better.
Emma Thompson was a surprise to me, it wasn't until the trailer that I realised she was in this. The instant I saw her I knew that I was going to love her. The Baroness is a force to be reckoned with and you can see the influence that she has. Ruthless and driven, every scene felt right.
Henchmen next, and of course I'm using "henchmen" in its loosest terms for Jasper and Horace. Another perfect vision of what's to come. Joel Fry as Jasper makes for an interesting take on the story, and while I can see why it's there, and I generally enjoy Fry's acting, I did not love Jasper quite as much as everyone around him. Particularly as he was paired with Paul Walter Hauser. Hauser is a great actor, if a little typecast in the slightly bumbling characters. His take on Horace is my favourite thing about this whole film. As a double act with Wink it was glorious and understated humour. I'd happily sit through a film entirely of them just being them.
I can't really talk Cruella without talking costume design. If this doesn't win all the awards then quite frankly it's complete insanity. Everything design-wise in this was amazing as far as I'm concerned. Cruella's hair changes and dresses blew me away. Eccentric, flamboyant, and just the right amount of crazy.
I'm not sure how I feel about the possibility of a sequel, but I really enjoyed this one. Everything from the film itself, to the posters, it ticked all the boxes.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/06/cruella-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Life for Peter Parker, (Andrew Garfield), has become interesting to say the least. He is juggling the delicate and complex balance of being Spider-man as well as a high school senior and boyfriend to Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone).
His enthusiasm for his wall crawling alter ego is evident from the start as he still is as fast with a quip as he is with his webs and fists when taking down the bad guys of New York.
A chance encounter with an ultra nerdy yet brilliant Oscorp employee named Max (Jaime Foxx), puts a series of events into motion that will put the city and Spider-man on a collision with a severe danger.
When a freak accident transforms Max into a being capable of becoming and discharging pure electricity, the passive aggressive Max has an outlet for his pent up anger and hero worship and sets to make all those who ignored him pay.
At the same time, internal politics have left Oscorp in the hands of young Harry who learns he has limited time to solidify his position and legacy.
All of this would be enough for anyone to deal with but Peter is conflicted by his love for Gwen and his promise to her late father to stay away from her for her own safety.
Peter also has to content with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and unlocking the mystery of his parents who left him with his Aunt and Uncle years earlier never to return.
If this sounds a bit heady for a comic book based movie then you will not be surprised with the first ¾ of the film. It does contain some great 3D moments of Spider-man slinging his way around the city and some good moments of action but mostly the audience gets character introductions and plot expositions.
When it does get to the action, it does so in a very sleek and stylish way but one that is so obviously CGI created that it plays more like a video game.
For me the liberties taking with the characters and the history of the series were a bit much at first as what they came up with for Electro is not even close to the way he is portrayed in the comics.
Thankfully the final act of the film delivers and sets up future films in grand style even though the trailers tease content that is barely in the film and would have made for a great addition to the film.
Garfield and Stone have great chemistry with one another, and Foxx does his best despite in my opinion being very miscast for the role.
Director Marc Webb is clearly a fan of the source material and I am eager to see what he comes up with for future installments.
As it stands, “The Amazing Spider-man 2”, is an enjoyable summer film but not as good as the film that preceded it and could have been so much more.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/02/amazing-spider-man-2/
His enthusiasm for his wall crawling alter ego is evident from the start as he still is as fast with a quip as he is with his webs and fists when taking down the bad guys of New York.
A chance encounter with an ultra nerdy yet brilliant Oscorp employee named Max (Jaime Foxx), puts a series of events into motion that will put the city and Spider-man on a collision with a severe danger.
When a freak accident transforms Max into a being capable of becoming and discharging pure electricity, the passive aggressive Max has an outlet for his pent up anger and hero worship and sets to make all those who ignored him pay.
At the same time, internal politics have left Oscorp in the hands of young Harry who learns he has limited time to solidify his position and legacy.
All of this would be enough for anyone to deal with but Peter is conflicted by his love for Gwen and his promise to her late father to stay away from her for her own safety.
Peter also has to content with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and unlocking the mystery of his parents who left him with his Aunt and Uncle years earlier never to return.
If this sounds a bit heady for a comic book based movie then you will not be surprised with the first ¾ of the film. It does contain some great 3D moments of Spider-man slinging his way around the city and some good moments of action but mostly the audience gets character introductions and plot expositions.
When it does get to the action, it does so in a very sleek and stylish way but one that is so obviously CGI created that it plays more like a video game.
For me the liberties taking with the characters and the history of the series were a bit much at first as what they came up with for Electro is not even close to the way he is portrayed in the comics.
Thankfully the final act of the film delivers and sets up future films in grand style even though the trailers tease content that is barely in the film and would have made for a great addition to the film.
Garfield and Stone have great chemistry with one another, and Foxx does his best despite in my opinion being very miscast for the role.
Director Marc Webb is clearly a fan of the source material and I am eager to see what he comes up with for future installments.
As it stands, “The Amazing Spider-man 2”, is an enjoyable summer film but not as good as the film that preceded it and could have been so much more.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/02/amazing-spider-man-2/
Darren (1599 KP) rated La La Land (2016) in Movies
Dec 23, 2019
Verdict: Delightful
Story: La La Land starts as we meet jazz singer Sebastian (Gosling) who has always had his own vision of what he wants his music to be which sees him struggle to keep jobs in Hollywood, let alone pay his bills. Mia (Stone) is an aspiring actress that is going through auditions, while working as a coffee shop on the studio lot.
After a couple of chance meetings, the two start a whirlwind romance that sees both their dreams start to come true in Hollywood, only at what price, can success in love and dreams work together?
Thoughts on La La Land
Characters – Sebastian loves jazz music, he has always had his own style when it comes to the music he is expected to play, he doesn’t understand how people don’t like jazz either, he has jumped between jobs because of his style and once he gets involved in a relationship with Mia, he must decide whether to have a secure gig or continue chasing his dreams of opening his own jazz bar. Mia is the aspiring actress that goes to countless auditions without getting much success, working on the studio lot, until she starts to take her own chance with her one person show. These two characters show the fairly tale dream chases that always believe they could make it and with each other in their lives they achieve more than they imagined.
Performances – Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are truly fantastic in the lead roles of this film, they show us just how easily somebody’s passion can take a toll on their lives.
Story – The story here follows an aspiring musician and an aspiring actress who meet, fall in love right as their careers start to skyrocket in the glitz and glamour of Hollywood. The story does show how dreamers can be led down paths which would see them push people away in their lives, we are left to see how this does feel like a giant fantasy between the two, after one maybe encounter to show how love and careers just take off, which I have always believed is in their heads, rather than in reality. This does have a fairy tale feel to it, which is nice to see and will be you entertained through the film.
Comedy/Musical/Romance – The comedy in the film comes from the natural conversations the pair go through, with the romance showing how we see love being difficult to understand at times. The musical side of the film is the way everybody is willing to sing and dance around town.
Settings – The film is set in Hollywood, which reflects the idea of the dreams that the characters have.
Scene of the Movie – The 5 years.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t get enough out of the supporting characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a beautiful fairy tale of life in Hollywood, it puts everything out there in a dream like reality of a life we all wish we could live, one that lets us follow our dreams.
Overall: Beautiful Fairy Tale of Hollywood.
Story: La La Land starts as we meet jazz singer Sebastian (Gosling) who has always had his own vision of what he wants his music to be which sees him struggle to keep jobs in Hollywood, let alone pay his bills. Mia (Stone) is an aspiring actress that is going through auditions, while working as a coffee shop on the studio lot.
After a couple of chance meetings, the two start a whirlwind romance that sees both their dreams start to come true in Hollywood, only at what price, can success in love and dreams work together?
Thoughts on La La Land
Characters – Sebastian loves jazz music, he has always had his own style when it comes to the music he is expected to play, he doesn’t understand how people don’t like jazz either, he has jumped between jobs because of his style and once he gets involved in a relationship with Mia, he must decide whether to have a secure gig or continue chasing his dreams of opening his own jazz bar. Mia is the aspiring actress that goes to countless auditions without getting much success, working on the studio lot, until she starts to take her own chance with her one person show. These two characters show the fairly tale dream chases that always believe they could make it and with each other in their lives they achieve more than they imagined.
Performances – Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are truly fantastic in the lead roles of this film, they show us just how easily somebody’s passion can take a toll on their lives.
Story – The story here follows an aspiring musician and an aspiring actress who meet, fall in love right as their careers start to skyrocket in the glitz and glamour of Hollywood. The story does show how dreamers can be led down paths which would see them push people away in their lives, we are left to see how this does feel like a giant fantasy between the two, after one maybe encounter to show how love and careers just take off, which I have always believed is in their heads, rather than in reality. This does have a fairy tale feel to it, which is nice to see and will be you entertained through the film.
Comedy/Musical/Romance – The comedy in the film comes from the natural conversations the pair go through, with the romance showing how we see love being difficult to understand at times. The musical side of the film is the way everybody is willing to sing and dance around town.
Settings – The film is set in Hollywood, which reflects the idea of the dreams that the characters have.
Scene of the Movie – The 5 years.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t get enough out of the supporting characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a beautiful fairy tale of life in Hollywood, it puts everything out there in a dream like reality of a life we all wish we could live, one that lets us follow our dreams.
Overall: Beautiful Fairy Tale of Hollywood.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Nov 1, 2019
I ended up enjoying this film
I really enjoyed the 2009 Horror/Comedy ZOMBIELAND - a truly unique and original film that blends the trendy (at the time) Zombie genre with really smart comedy populated by some truly charismatic comedic performers and a GREAT surprise cameo.
So...I greeted the news that there would be a sequel - 10 years later - with a shrug. Why would they want to revisit this tired (at this time) genre with performers that have (for the most part) gone on to "bigger and better" things (including a few Oscar nominations and 1 Oscar win). But...I enjoyed the first, so I figured I'd check it out. And...for the first 20 minutes or so of this film, I sat there with my arms folded across my chest thinking "they are just trying too hard to replicate the first film". And then an interesting thing happened...
I chuckled to myself. Then I chuckled some more, and then I started laughing out loud and at about the 1 hour mark, I realized, "I'm really enjoying myself".
Credit, I think, has to go the charm, charisma and chemistry between the 4 returning leads - Emma Stone, Jesse Eisenberg, Abigail Breslin and Woody Harrelson. It was like running into 4 old friends and old, comfortable, patterns re-emerge (kind of liking eating comfort food). These are ably assisted by good, fun turns by the likes of Rosario Dawson, Luke Wilson and Thomas Middleditch. Special mention has to be made of Zoey Deutsch's turn as blonde air-head, Madison. This could have easily been a one-note, annoyance. but she brings something more to role that makes her endearing, not cloying.
The original creative team - Director Ruben Fleischer and Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick - are back as well, so the style and humor are similar to the first film - not really bringing much new to the proceedings, but not just "getting a paycheck" either.
This film is "nothing new", but I enjoyed it anyway - so if you liked the first Zombieland, you'll like this one as well. ONE NOTE - there is a "credits scene" as well as a "button scene" at the end of the credits that are MUST WATCH. So stick around for those, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...I greeted the news that there would be a sequel - 10 years later - with a shrug. Why would they want to revisit this tired (at this time) genre with performers that have (for the most part) gone on to "bigger and better" things (including a few Oscar nominations and 1 Oscar win). But...I enjoyed the first, so I figured I'd check it out. And...for the first 20 minutes or so of this film, I sat there with my arms folded across my chest thinking "they are just trying too hard to replicate the first film". And then an interesting thing happened...
I chuckled to myself. Then I chuckled some more, and then I started laughing out loud and at about the 1 hour mark, I realized, "I'm really enjoying myself".
Credit, I think, has to go the charm, charisma and chemistry between the 4 returning leads - Emma Stone, Jesse Eisenberg, Abigail Breslin and Woody Harrelson. It was like running into 4 old friends and old, comfortable, patterns re-emerge (kind of liking eating comfort food). These are ably assisted by good, fun turns by the likes of Rosario Dawson, Luke Wilson and Thomas Middleditch. Special mention has to be made of Zoey Deutsch's turn as blonde air-head, Madison. This could have easily been a one-note, annoyance. but she brings something more to role that makes her endearing, not cloying.
The original creative team - Director Ruben Fleischer and Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick - are back as well, so the style and humor are similar to the first film - not really bringing much new to the proceedings, but not just "getting a paycheck" either.
This film is "nothing new", but I enjoyed it anyway - so if you liked the first Zombieland, you'll like this one as well. ONE NOTE - there is a "credits scene" as well as a "button scene" at the end of the credits that are MUST WATCH. So stick around for those, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Favourite (2018) in Movies
Jan 24, 2019
Quirky and original with strong performances and direction
Greek Director Yorgos Lanthimos is the director of such quirky, bizarre comedy/dramas as DOGTOOTH, THE LOBSTER and KILLING OF A SACRED DEER and his latest, THE FAVOURITE is no different, so when it was nominated for 10 Oscars, I thought I'd better go see what all the fuss was all about.
And I'm glad I did for THE FAVOURITE is a biting, funny, sarcastic, bizarre, intense and interesting Royal Court drama about the inner workings, back channel dealings and backstabbing social climbing in Queen Anne's court in England in the early 18th Century as seen through Lanthimos' camera lens - a lens that is different indeed.
Starring Oscar winners Rachel Weisz (THE CONSTANT GARDNER) and Emma Stone (LA LA LAND) in their Oscar nominated turns as cousins who vie for the attentions of Queen Anne (Olivia Colman, also Oscar nominated), it is the rare film that features 3 strong women who play off each other well and where each one is a full character in and of themselves - all 3 with strengths and weaknesses that make them real and compelling and performed by 3 strong actresses. Needless to say that each Oscar nod is well deserved.
But the real star of this film is the sensibilities and camera work of Lanthimos. He uses unusual camera angles, unusual angles and bizarre imagery to show the unreality of the court in relation to the real world around them and is a commentary on these people as much as it shows the action on the screen. This film is an artist with a true, unique vision and is one that, while not for everyone, is one that worked for me.
Lanthimos layers on a rich tapestry of story (by Oscar nominated Screenplay writers Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara) locations (by Oscar nominated Production Designers Fijona Crombie and Alice Felton), Costumes (by Oscar nominated costumer Sandy Powell) , editing (by Oscar nominated Yorgos Mavropsaridis), Cinematography (by Oscar nominated Robbie Ryan) and performances, direction and film.
I think you get the point - this film has become (rightfully so) a darling of the Awards season and is well worth checking out - while this film is not entirely successful in what it attempts to do, it is fun to watch the attempt and the strong performances, characters, direction, costumes, cinematography, etc...which more than makes up for any shortcomings in the story (especially the final act of the film).
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And I'm glad I did for THE FAVOURITE is a biting, funny, sarcastic, bizarre, intense and interesting Royal Court drama about the inner workings, back channel dealings and backstabbing social climbing in Queen Anne's court in England in the early 18th Century as seen through Lanthimos' camera lens - a lens that is different indeed.
Starring Oscar winners Rachel Weisz (THE CONSTANT GARDNER) and Emma Stone (LA LA LAND) in their Oscar nominated turns as cousins who vie for the attentions of Queen Anne (Olivia Colman, also Oscar nominated), it is the rare film that features 3 strong women who play off each other well and where each one is a full character in and of themselves - all 3 with strengths and weaknesses that make them real and compelling and performed by 3 strong actresses. Needless to say that each Oscar nod is well deserved.
But the real star of this film is the sensibilities and camera work of Lanthimos. He uses unusual camera angles, unusual angles and bizarre imagery to show the unreality of the court in relation to the real world around them and is a commentary on these people as much as it shows the action on the screen. This film is an artist with a true, unique vision and is one that, while not for everyone, is one that worked for me.
Lanthimos layers on a rich tapestry of story (by Oscar nominated Screenplay writers Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara) locations (by Oscar nominated Production Designers Fijona Crombie and Alice Felton), Costumes (by Oscar nominated costumer Sandy Powell) , editing (by Oscar nominated Yorgos Mavropsaridis), Cinematography (by Oscar nominated Robbie Ryan) and performances, direction and film.
I think you get the point - this film has become (rightfully so) a darling of the Awards season and is well worth checking out - while this film is not entirely successful in what it attempts to do, it is fun to watch the attempt and the strong performances, characters, direction, costumes, cinematography, etc...which more than makes up for any shortcomings in the story (especially the final act of the film).
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A film that never needed to exist
Marc Webb’s first attempt at being behind the lens of a Marvel film was 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man. Just five years after Sam Raimi concluded his trilogy with Tobey Maguire in the tight fitting suit, Andrew Garfield donned the iconic costume in a film that was good if a little unnecessary. Here, Webb returns just two years later with The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but can it prove its worth?
Thankfully yes. Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but one of Marvel’s greatest offerings despite some flaws in its production.
Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone return as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey respectively as they battle a whole host of new foes in a movie that is loud, frequently violent and massively long.
Peter is still trying to piece together the fate of his parents as Aunt May, played excellently by Sally Field, continues to keep the truth from him. However, there’s no time for anguish as the villains come thick-and-fast.
Jamie Foxx, Paul Giamatti and a superb Dane DeHaan are all present to give Spider-Man, and his alter ego, a good kicking. A brilliantly unrestrained Foxx plays Max Dillon who inexplicably becomes one of the title characters best on-screen foes, Electro.
Much of the criticism of Raimi’s 2007 blockbuster Spider-Man 3 was given to the inclusion of too many plots, sub-plots and villains. Therefore many fans and critics thought the case would be similar here, especially considering Electro, Green Goblin and Rhino were all billed to appear.
The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-New-Poster-spider-man-35222096-1024-1421
Mercifully, Webb restrains himself and leaves much of the film’s running time to Electro while Rhino (Giamatti) and Green Goblin (DeHaan) are merely given glorified cameos; setting the characters up for a larger part in the inevitable Amazing Spider-Man 3 and 4.
The special effects are on a whole new level to what we have seen previously. Apart from a few lapses towards the climatic finale, where things can begin to look like a video game, the film looks absolutely fantastic. The soaring shots of Spider-Man swinging his way across New York landmarks are exceptional and Webb’s use of slow-motion frames bring home the spider like senses Parker has been gifted with.
Acting performances are also sublime. Parker is a much better Spider-Man than Maguire was in the previous films. His geeky, timid persona is brilliantly juxtaposed with the superhero’s more arrogant attitude. Yet he never becomes irritating, a la Spider-Man 3. Emma Stone’s portrayal of love interest Gwen Stacey is wonderful and she does a cracking job of making the pair have real chemistry despite how difficult it is for this to create – though it must always help when you are partnered in real life.
The real joy here though is Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn/Green Goblin. His performance is the complete opposite of James Franco’s take, he makes Harry a more vulnerable young man, clearly damaged by previous events in his life, as well as the ones which will no doubt occur in the future.
Unfortunately, the film’s running time is a real headache. At 142 minutes, you begin to check your watch as there are numerous points where you believe it could end – though it never does. Thankfully, this is a minor issue in a film which rarely lets up in its riveting pace.
Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a film which never really needed to exist, certainly not for another ten years or so. It is clear in some respects that its production has been rushed to capitalise on the ever-popular Marvel series, but in others it makes perfect sense to release it when the story is still fresh in people’s minds.
Despite some clunky special effects in the finale and its gargantuan length, Amazing Spider-Man 2 boasts excellent performances and a humorous and exciting story, and as such is one of Marvel’s best offerings to date, only beaten by Avengers Assemble. The only question is, was it all necessary?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/19/the-amazing-spider-man-2-review/
Thankfully yes. Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but one of Marvel’s greatest offerings despite some flaws in its production.
Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone return as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey respectively as they battle a whole host of new foes in a movie that is loud, frequently violent and massively long.
Peter is still trying to piece together the fate of his parents as Aunt May, played excellently by Sally Field, continues to keep the truth from him. However, there’s no time for anguish as the villains come thick-and-fast.
Jamie Foxx, Paul Giamatti and a superb Dane DeHaan are all present to give Spider-Man, and his alter ego, a good kicking. A brilliantly unrestrained Foxx plays Max Dillon who inexplicably becomes one of the title characters best on-screen foes, Electro.
Much of the criticism of Raimi’s 2007 blockbuster Spider-Man 3 was given to the inclusion of too many plots, sub-plots and villains. Therefore many fans and critics thought the case would be similar here, especially considering Electro, Green Goblin and Rhino were all billed to appear.
The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-New-Poster-spider-man-35222096-1024-1421
Mercifully, Webb restrains himself and leaves much of the film’s running time to Electro while Rhino (Giamatti) and Green Goblin (DeHaan) are merely given glorified cameos; setting the characters up for a larger part in the inevitable Amazing Spider-Man 3 and 4.
The special effects are on a whole new level to what we have seen previously. Apart from a few lapses towards the climatic finale, where things can begin to look like a video game, the film looks absolutely fantastic. The soaring shots of Spider-Man swinging his way across New York landmarks are exceptional and Webb’s use of slow-motion frames bring home the spider like senses Parker has been gifted with.
Acting performances are also sublime. Parker is a much better Spider-Man than Maguire was in the previous films. His geeky, timid persona is brilliantly juxtaposed with the superhero’s more arrogant attitude. Yet he never becomes irritating, a la Spider-Man 3. Emma Stone’s portrayal of love interest Gwen Stacey is wonderful and she does a cracking job of making the pair have real chemistry despite how difficult it is for this to create – though it must always help when you are partnered in real life.
The real joy here though is Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn/Green Goblin. His performance is the complete opposite of James Franco’s take, he makes Harry a more vulnerable young man, clearly damaged by previous events in his life, as well as the ones which will no doubt occur in the future.
Unfortunately, the film’s running time is a real headache. At 142 minutes, you begin to check your watch as there are numerous points where you believe it could end – though it never does. Thankfully, this is a minor issue in a film which rarely lets up in its riveting pace.
Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a film which never really needed to exist, certainly not for another ten years or so. It is clear in some respects that its production has been rushed to capitalise on the ever-popular Marvel series, but in others it makes perfect sense to release it when the story is still fresh in people’s minds.
Despite some clunky special effects in the finale and its gargantuan length, Amazing Spider-Man 2 boasts excellent performances and a humorous and exciting story, and as such is one of Marvel’s best offerings to date, only beaten by Avengers Assemble. The only question is, was it all necessary?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/19/the-amazing-spider-man-2-review/