Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Poltergeist (1982) in Movies
Oct 25, 2019
The TV People!
When the Freeling family moved into their suburban California home, little did they know what they were getting themselves into! Minor oddities began showing themselves like chairs stacking in the kitchen lights flashing or even being pulled across the kitchen floor. It felt like a "tickle". The situation quickly grows more severe as a tree outside the children's room plunges inside and tries to ingest son, Robbie. Simultaneously, a gateway of sorts opens in the children's room eventually pulling the entire contents into its closet vortex including youngest daughter, Carol Anne.
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! š
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! š
Darren (1599 KP) rated Prospect (2018) in Movies
Jul 22, 2019
Verdict: Slow Paced
Story: Prospect starts when a father Damon (Duplass) and his daughter Cee (Thatcher) are travelling through space, looking to make a big discovery, thrown off path they land on an alien moon, setting out to explore the area.
When the pair run into Ezra (Pascal) another prospector on the moon, things turn to deals with the tension amped up to see who will leave the moon with the treasure on the moon, or whether leaving is a better option and soon they will learn of the other dangers on the moon.
Thoughts on Prospect
Characters ā Cee is the teenager girl that has been travelling through space with her father, she does want to make a place her home, always wondering if she can get home, she must work with her father and a stranger to survive her time on this latest moon, proving she is ready to step up to do the more difficult tasks in life. Damon is Ceeās father, he has been searching space for valuable treasures so he can get out of this desperate lifestyle, his greed is his biggest weakness. Ezra is a stranger that the two run into, he is after the same thing and must earn their trust to survive and trust them to get survive the threats the moon has to offer.
Performances ā Sophie Thatcher as the teenager does everything she can in her role, she doesnāt get to shine on the levels she could, but this falls back into the writing, Jay Duplass really doesnāt get the time to make an impact in this film, while Pedro Pascal is the highlight of the acting, because he must carry large parts of the dialogue in the film.
Story ā The story follows a father and daughter prospector pairing that land on a new moon in search for their own richest only to find themselves in a battle to survive against rivals and the moon itself. This story is easily borrowing the idea of the early days of prospectors around the world, people that travelled great distances in hope of becoming rich, we get to see what is more important, riches or family, all in a position which has threats around every corner. The weakness of this story comes from the idea that moon is dangerous, though we only get environmental issues, with all the other problems being human, it would also have been nice to understand just how big the travelling is in this universe, we just casually follow on ship, is this one of the absolute poorest, is Earth uninhabitable now, there are so many questions about the universe we are entering that feel unanswered.
Sci-Fi ā The sci-fi side of the film does just seem to be the characters wearing helmets, we barely get anything that makes this as ambitious as it could be.
Settings ā The settings are beautiful though, the opening spaces, the closed woodland, yes it could easily be anywhere on Earth, but the visuals make this look like an alien moon in every shot.
Special Effects ā The effects are used to add environment to the mon, but outside of this for a space based movie, we get very little to work with.
Scene of the Movie ā First exploring of the moon.
That Moment That Annoyed Me ā It is very slow.
Final Thoughts ā This is one of the films that could have been a lot more interesting that we get, the pacing of the film does hold everything up and the fact we donāt learn more about the universe doesnāt help us understand just what is going on.
Overall: Keep searching for the treasure.
Rating
Story: Prospect starts when a father Damon (Duplass) and his daughter Cee (Thatcher) are travelling through space, looking to make a big discovery, thrown off path they land on an alien moon, setting out to explore the area.
When the pair run into Ezra (Pascal) another prospector on the moon, things turn to deals with the tension amped up to see who will leave the moon with the treasure on the moon, or whether leaving is a better option and soon they will learn of the other dangers on the moon.
Thoughts on Prospect
Characters ā Cee is the teenager girl that has been travelling through space with her father, she does want to make a place her home, always wondering if she can get home, she must work with her father and a stranger to survive her time on this latest moon, proving she is ready to step up to do the more difficult tasks in life. Damon is Ceeās father, he has been searching space for valuable treasures so he can get out of this desperate lifestyle, his greed is his biggest weakness. Ezra is a stranger that the two run into, he is after the same thing and must earn their trust to survive and trust them to get survive the threats the moon has to offer.
Performances ā Sophie Thatcher as the teenager does everything she can in her role, she doesnāt get to shine on the levels she could, but this falls back into the writing, Jay Duplass really doesnāt get the time to make an impact in this film, while Pedro Pascal is the highlight of the acting, because he must carry large parts of the dialogue in the film.
Story ā The story follows a father and daughter prospector pairing that land on a new moon in search for their own richest only to find themselves in a battle to survive against rivals and the moon itself. This story is easily borrowing the idea of the early days of prospectors around the world, people that travelled great distances in hope of becoming rich, we get to see what is more important, riches or family, all in a position which has threats around every corner. The weakness of this story comes from the idea that moon is dangerous, though we only get environmental issues, with all the other problems being human, it would also have been nice to understand just how big the travelling is in this universe, we just casually follow on ship, is this one of the absolute poorest, is Earth uninhabitable now, there are so many questions about the universe we are entering that feel unanswered.
Sci-Fi ā The sci-fi side of the film does just seem to be the characters wearing helmets, we barely get anything that makes this as ambitious as it could be.
Settings ā The settings are beautiful though, the opening spaces, the closed woodland, yes it could easily be anywhere on Earth, but the visuals make this look like an alien moon in every shot.
Special Effects ā The effects are used to add environment to the mon, but outside of this for a space based movie, we get very little to work with.
Scene of the Movie ā First exploring of the moon.
That Moment That Annoyed Me ā It is very slow.
Final Thoughts ā This is one of the films that could have been a lot more interesting that we get, the pacing of the film does hold everything up and the fact we donāt learn more about the universe doesnāt help us understand just what is going on.
Overall: Keep searching for the treasure.
Rating
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
What would you do if you discovered you had superpowers in adolescence? How would you juggle being a fighter for justice and try to have a normal teenage experience? Spider-Man: Homecoming offers a more realistic look at how this would take place. Where the previous series of films never seemed to make that connection of balancing oneās youth and the varied problems that come during that period with what it means to be a superhero. The Tobey Maguire and the forgettable Andrew Garfield portrayals relied on a more comic book look and storylines to bring audiences to the theaters. This is not the case for the newest iteration. The film is not presumptuous or pretentious in its approach.
Tom Holland returns to the Marvel Universe as Spider-Man after being introduced in Captain America: Civil War. In this version, the audience is not subjected to an origin story to carry the bulk of the film. Instead, it addresses the issues of Spider-Manās genesis in the previous film so that audiences can arrive in their seats ready to watch the action unfold. From the first opening frames of the films, we bear witness to the development of this story which builds off of The Avengers as we are introduced to Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), owner of a salvage company tasked with cleaning up the city. Upon his operation, he and his crew begin to discover the power of the alien equipment that they begin to sell on the black market. The development of this character is done with more care than previous films where the villainsā backstories rely simply on jealousy, seeking power, or just a thirst for chaos. The film shows a man who feels wronged by the system and simply wants to provide for his family. We are allowed to make a connection with āThe Vultureā that makes us question if whether we would do anything much differently than he.
The same development is demonstrated with Tom Hollandās portrayal of Spider-Man. He is thrust into this role through the encouragement of Tony Stark, but when Stark doesnāt return his calls or seem to express interest after the battle scene in Captain America: Civil War, he tries to demonstrate his worth through becoming a local superhero. With that new calling, to paraphrase a statement made popular in Spider-Man, comes great responsibility. He must balance his life and try to compartmentalize his existence. The film does not disappoint in allowing the viewers to see Peter Parker as more than Spider-Man. They begin to see all the varied aspects of who he is and his rationale for being a superhero. We bear witness to the pain that he feels in having to keep his identity a secret from his friends and Aunt Mae. His superpowers and abilities come to be seen as a heavy burden that begins pulling him apart. He has to grow and understand who he is in order to be capable of everything he seeks to be.
Spider-Man Homecoming does not disappoint. It is by far, the best Marvel film made due to its ability to connect with fans of different ages and interests. The film is fun, funny, creative, and will have viewers forget about any previous versions and films. Tom Holland is the perfect fit for Peter Parker and an even better fit for Spider-Man. The film is mature, filled with depth, emotion, and many connections to other superhero films in the Marvel cinematic universe. It is well on its way to ensuring that the franchise will have a long life.
Tom Holland returns to the Marvel Universe as Spider-Man after being introduced in Captain America: Civil War. In this version, the audience is not subjected to an origin story to carry the bulk of the film. Instead, it addresses the issues of Spider-Manās genesis in the previous film so that audiences can arrive in their seats ready to watch the action unfold. From the first opening frames of the films, we bear witness to the development of this story which builds off of The Avengers as we are introduced to Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), owner of a salvage company tasked with cleaning up the city. Upon his operation, he and his crew begin to discover the power of the alien equipment that they begin to sell on the black market. The development of this character is done with more care than previous films where the villainsā backstories rely simply on jealousy, seeking power, or just a thirst for chaos. The film shows a man who feels wronged by the system and simply wants to provide for his family. We are allowed to make a connection with āThe Vultureā that makes us question if whether we would do anything much differently than he.
The same development is demonstrated with Tom Hollandās portrayal of Spider-Man. He is thrust into this role through the encouragement of Tony Stark, but when Stark doesnāt return his calls or seem to express interest after the battle scene in Captain America: Civil War, he tries to demonstrate his worth through becoming a local superhero. With that new calling, to paraphrase a statement made popular in Spider-Man, comes great responsibility. He must balance his life and try to compartmentalize his existence. The film does not disappoint in allowing the viewers to see Peter Parker as more than Spider-Man. They begin to see all the varied aspects of who he is and his rationale for being a superhero. We bear witness to the pain that he feels in having to keep his identity a secret from his friends and Aunt Mae. His superpowers and abilities come to be seen as a heavy burden that begins pulling him apart. He has to grow and understand who he is in order to be capable of everything he seeks to be.
Spider-Man Homecoming does not disappoint. It is by far, the best Marvel film made due to its ability to connect with fans of different ages and interests. The film is fun, funny, creative, and will have viewers forget about any previous versions and films. Tom Holland is the perfect fit for Peter Parker and an even better fit for Spider-Man. The film is mature, filled with depth, emotion, and many connections to other superhero films in the Marvel cinematic universe. It is well on its way to ensuring that the franchise will have a long life.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Fruitvale Station (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2020
Here is another movie that was put up for consideration for my upcoming book 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential Films. It didnāt quite make the final cut, but is part of the long list of honourable mentions ā movies that are easy to like and recommend, but arenāt quite of the very highest quality in their respective genres.
Borderline superstar Michael B. Jordan owes his career to Ryan Coogler, which began in earnest in 2013 with the strong effort of true story Fruitvale Station, highlighting the life and final moments of Oscar Grant, who was one of a tragically long list of innocent young men murdered by the police in modern America. Since then he has gone on to star as the eponymous Creed and as the popular Erik Killmonger in Black Panther, making him more or less the most famous black actor under forty currently at work.
I mention him first because having seen the other two films first, I have to admit I wasnāt quite getting it. I mean he is fine in both movies, but nothing world beating. Then you go back to his acheivement in the earlier film and begin to see what he might be capable of given the right scripts. He pretty much embodies Oscar Grant to a degree you believe you are watching a documentary. Which is the major plus point of Ryan Cooglerās direction also.
By pulling us in to the family life of Oscar, as if we were a fly on the wall, we become connected to their story as if we were part of that inner circle, making the inevitable horror of events hit home all the harder. We watch mundane events and conversations take place with a shadow of foreboding that never crosses over into foreshadowing or signposting. The balance is very nicely done.
Melonie Diaz, as girlfriend Sophina, and especially the ever wonderful Octavia Spencer, as loving but grounded mother Wanda, offer solid support, but the camera clings to Jordan by choice, asking us to place ourselves in his shoes and feel the empathy first hand. It is a sober journey, almost totally devoid of directorial flair, which is both a strength and a weakness, ultimately.
With such an awful, heart-rending subject, it can be difficult to remove yourself into a dispassionate view of a film artistically, as the message overpowers your emotions. The best thing that can be said in this case is that the drama never crosses the line of sentimentality or overkill; it merely presents events as they were and asks you to draw your own conclusions. Having said that, I canāt over-praise it simply because the subject needs to be seen, heard, discussed and acted upon with total immediacy in the real world.
This film is already seven years old, and the issues are more pertinent than ever before, as the BLM movement rages all over the world, but especially in the USA, where the culpability and violence of police officers must be addressed and resolved before the loss of one more innocent life. The message delivered by the film is clear and unambiguous ā it has to be heeded. And in that sense it is an indespensible film of great power, I would advise you to see.
And with that, it seems a moot point to criticise it, because there isnāt anything negative to say that would say anything useful. I would just say again that it doesnāt quite make the grade of the best 200 films since the Millennium. Whereas, BlacKkKlansman does. An unfair comparison in many ways, but an obvious one in others. See both. Think about them, do what you can, and help make hatred and prejudice a sad fact of history.
Decinemal Rating: 70
Borderline superstar Michael B. Jordan owes his career to Ryan Coogler, which began in earnest in 2013 with the strong effort of true story Fruitvale Station, highlighting the life and final moments of Oscar Grant, who was one of a tragically long list of innocent young men murdered by the police in modern America. Since then he has gone on to star as the eponymous Creed and as the popular Erik Killmonger in Black Panther, making him more or less the most famous black actor under forty currently at work.
I mention him first because having seen the other two films first, I have to admit I wasnāt quite getting it. I mean he is fine in both movies, but nothing world beating. Then you go back to his acheivement in the earlier film and begin to see what he might be capable of given the right scripts. He pretty much embodies Oscar Grant to a degree you believe you are watching a documentary. Which is the major plus point of Ryan Cooglerās direction also.
By pulling us in to the family life of Oscar, as if we were a fly on the wall, we become connected to their story as if we were part of that inner circle, making the inevitable horror of events hit home all the harder. We watch mundane events and conversations take place with a shadow of foreboding that never crosses over into foreshadowing or signposting. The balance is very nicely done.
Melonie Diaz, as girlfriend Sophina, and especially the ever wonderful Octavia Spencer, as loving but grounded mother Wanda, offer solid support, but the camera clings to Jordan by choice, asking us to place ourselves in his shoes and feel the empathy first hand. It is a sober journey, almost totally devoid of directorial flair, which is both a strength and a weakness, ultimately.
With such an awful, heart-rending subject, it can be difficult to remove yourself into a dispassionate view of a film artistically, as the message overpowers your emotions. The best thing that can be said in this case is that the drama never crosses the line of sentimentality or overkill; it merely presents events as they were and asks you to draw your own conclusions. Having said that, I canāt over-praise it simply because the subject needs to be seen, heard, discussed and acted upon with total immediacy in the real world.
This film is already seven years old, and the issues are more pertinent than ever before, as the BLM movement rages all over the world, but especially in the USA, where the culpability and violence of police officers must be addressed and resolved before the loss of one more innocent life. The message delivered by the film is clear and unambiguous ā it has to be heeded. And in that sense it is an indespensible film of great power, I would advise you to see.
And with that, it seems a moot point to criticise it, because there isnāt anything negative to say that would say anything useful. I would just say again that it doesnāt quite make the grade of the best 200 films since the Millennium. Whereas, BlacKkKlansman does. An unfair comparison in many ways, but an obvious one in others. See both. Think about them, do what you can, and help make hatred and prejudice a sad fact of history.
Decinemal Rating: 70
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Phantom Thread (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
āThereās an air of quiet death in this houseā.
The alleged acting swan-song of Daniel Day-Lewis (āLincolnā) sees him deliver a brilliantly intense portrayal of a maestro in his craft with all the quirks and egotistical faults that come with that position.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950ās fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, āMaleficentā).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, āThe Colonyā). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and ā aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words ā limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manvilleās award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles Iāve seen this year so far.
Itās a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for āDarkest Hourā, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because āhe always gets oneā. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips ā not an actress I know ā also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasnāt such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radioheadās Jonny Greenwood. Itās really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with āThe Shape of Waterā).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (āInherent Viceā, āThere Will Be Bloodā). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the āfashion industryā (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ādutyā based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say āThere is strong language (āf**kā), as well as milder terms including ābloodyā and āhellā. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a womanās nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.ā For a 12A, the board say āThe use of strong language (for example, āf***ā) must be infrequentā. I didnāt count the f-wordsā¦ but as I said I donāt think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that āfrequentā? And ā SHOCK, HORRORā¦ visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within āBlack Pantherā, you have to question this disparity.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950ās fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, āMaleficentā).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, āThe Colonyā). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and ā aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words ā limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manvilleās award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles Iāve seen this year so far.
Itās a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for āDarkest Hourā, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because āhe always gets oneā. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips ā not an actress I know ā also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasnāt such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radioheadās Jonny Greenwood. Itās really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with āThe Shape of Waterā).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (āInherent Viceā, āThere Will Be Bloodā). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the āfashion industryā (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ādutyā based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say āThere is strong language (āf**kā), as well as milder terms including ābloodyā and āhellā. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a womanās nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.ā For a 12A, the board say āThe use of strong language (for example, āf***ā) must be infrequentā. I didnāt count the f-wordsā¦ but as I said I donāt think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that āfrequentā? And ā SHOCK, HORRORā¦ visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within āBlack Pantherā, you have to question this disparity.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Lots of hensā¦ but turkeys would be more appropriate.
I was not a great fan of the original Venom, although I did find aspects of it to like. Unfortunately, for me, the sequel ā āVenom: Let There Be Carnageā ā delivered even less. And I found aspects of it positively distasteful.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venomās help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
āVenom: Let There Be Carnageā Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking āX-woman-styleā villain. (Iām embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. Itās not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. Itās just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought āUgh!ā and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a āFamily manā prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the āpower-upā scene ā ā a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. Itās like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of āAnt Manā.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but Iām not a great fan of Tom Hardyās acting style here. āLegendā proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
Iām normally a fan of Marco Beltramiās scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And thatās before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on āVenom: Let There Be Carnageā
Youāll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didnāt work for me. Even as a āpark your brain at the doorā action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch āThe Last Duelā instead.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venomās help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
āVenom: Let There Be Carnageā Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking āX-woman-styleā villain. (Iām embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. Itās not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. Itās just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought āUgh!ā and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a āFamily manā prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the āpower-upā scene ā ā a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. Itās like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of āAnt Manā.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but Iām not a great fan of Tom Hardyās acting style here. āLegendā proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
Iām normally a fan of Marco Beltramiās scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And thatās before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on āVenom: Let There Be Carnageā
Youāll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didnāt work for me. Even as a āpark your brain at the doorā action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch āThe Last Duelā instead.
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Darkest Lies in Books
Jul 26, 2017
Believable plot regarding child abduction (1 more)
The mystery is compelling
Frustrating protagonist, (2 more)
Extremely predictable
Good case for why civilians shouldnāt go rogue and get in the way of police work
A frustrating abduction mystery
You know that age in every teenagerās life where they start to become a little bit rebellious? Telling little white lies, sneaking out, hanging out with crowds they know the family wouldnāt approve of? It can be a scary time for parents, who knows whoās out there? The Darkest Lies is every parentās worst nightmare and follows a mother who finds her world shattered when her daughter goes missing.
Iām going to come right out and say that this book was frustrating for me. The synopsis really caught my eye and the idea for the plot is intriguing. Unfortunately, issues with the protagonist as well as a shaky and highly predictable plot made for a mediocre experience.
The narration in this book was a little bit weird and I had a hard time getting used to it. It is primarily told using first person point of view though switches regularly to second person as Melanie speaks directly to Beth in her inner monologue. It was just uncomfortable to read.
Whatās so bad about first person point of view? See the issue for me with first person narration is that itās easy to end up alienating readers if itās difficult to relate to the narrator, and boy did I dislike Melanie. To be blunt, she was really annoying. She was self-centered, mean-spirited, often blinded by her own hubris, and near the end has a bit of a messiah complex going which I found completely ridiculous. She was constantly complaining about the policeās incompetence, throwing herself in the way of the investigation despite being asked multiple times to back off before she could destroy their leads. āI couldnāt go home. I was too furious, too desperate to prove I was right and the police were wrong.ā
I get it, sheās consumed with guilt and grief over what happened to her daughter, over not being able to protect her. Desperate people tend to lash out and do stupid things, but I just couldnāt believe anyone would be so foolish. Melanieās antics do lead up to something important in the plot, but honestly she didnāt need any help making a fool of herself. Before all the crazy came out she was constantly breaking down every female character she encountered, often focusing in on their looks and finding ways to insult them. Neighbors, police officers working on the case, teenagers, it didnāt matter. There are numerous examples of Melanie exhibiting this jealous personality throughout the course of the book.
She spends more time going on drunken rampages pointing fingers at everyone in town, harassing the police, treating her husband like garbage while emotionally cheating with a friend, and avoiding actually seeing and being there for her daughter. While her awful actions over the course of the book is an important aspect of the plot, I just couldnāt justify it because she never learns and remains stubborn even after being told off multiple times. Add on top how stereotypically reckless she acts at the end instead of seeking help from the police because of course she doesnāt need them and I just couldnāt dig the story.
I liked the central idea around the dangers of teens sneaking out and trusting strangers, but the story meandered so much it kind of gets lost in Melanieās mental collapse and crazed search for the culprit. The plot attempts to use some misdirection to keep the reader guessing but the construction was just sloppy, and the actual culprit isnāt even the character that Melanie cares about the most. Every ābadā character is so blatantly obvious that the advertised twist is really easy to see. I kept on reading because I wanted to know the how and the why. I think there was potential here, and if the author wanted to stick to the narrative that Mel is actually really nice and is just being manipulated then why does she remain every bit as petty and controlling? She is still unable to see past her own emotions and unable to learn from her mistakes. I wished that this couldāve ended with more character growth for the main character.
Iām going to come right out and say that this book was frustrating for me. The synopsis really caught my eye and the idea for the plot is intriguing. Unfortunately, issues with the protagonist as well as a shaky and highly predictable plot made for a mediocre experience.
The narration in this book was a little bit weird and I had a hard time getting used to it. It is primarily told using first person point of view though switches regularly to second person as Melanie speaks directly to Beth in her inner monologue. It was just uncomfortable to read.
Whatās so bad about first person point of view? See the issue for me with first person narration is that itās easy to end up alienating readers if itās difficult to relate to the narrator, and boy did I dislike Melanie. To be blunt, she was really annoying. She was self-centered, mean-spirited, often blinded by her own hubris, and near the end has a bit of a messiah complex going which I found completely ridiculous. She was constantly complaining about the policeās incompetence, throwing herself in the way of the investigation despite being asked multiple times to back off before she could destroy their leads. āI couldnāt go home. I was too furious, too desperate to prove I was right and the police were wrong.ā
I get it, sheās consumed with guilt and grief over what happened to her daughter, over not being able to protect her. Desperate people tend to lash out and do stupid things, but I just couldnāt believe anyone would be so foolish. Melanieās antics do lead up to something important in the plot, but honestly she didnāt need any help making a fool of herself. Before all the crazy came out she was constantly breaking down every female character she encountered, often focusing in on their looks and finding ways to insult them. Neighbors, police officers working on the case, teenagers, it didnāt matter. There are numerous examples of Melanie exhibiting this jealous personality throughout the course of the book.
She spends more time going on drunken rampages pointing fingers at everyone in town, harassing the police, treating her husband like garbage while emotionally cheating with a friend, and avoiding actually seeing and being there for her daughter. While her awful actions over the course of the book is an important aspect of the plot, I just couldnāt justify it because she never learns and remains stubborn even after being told off multiple times. Add on top how stereotypically reckless she acts at the end instead of seeking help from the police because of course she doesnāt need them and I just couldnāt dig the story.
I liked the central idea around the dangers of teens sneaking out and trusting strangers, but the story meandered so much it kind of gets lost in Melanieās mental collapse and crazed search for the culprit. The plot attempts to use some misdirection to keep the reader guessing but the construction was just sloppy, and the actual culprit isnāt even the character that Melanie cares about the most. Every ābadā character is so blatantly obvious that the advertised twist is really easy to see. I kept on reading because I wanted to know the how and the why. I think there was potential here, and if the author wanted to stick to the narrative that Mel is actually really nice and is just being manipulated then why does she remain every bit as petty and controlling? She is still unable to see past her own emotions and unable to learn from her mistakes. I wished that this couldāve ended with more character growth for the main character.
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Protector in Books
Jun 12, 2019
Girl Doesnāt Take Her Mateās Crap in this YA Fantasy Romance Novel
Contains spoilers, click to show
Genre: Fantasy, YA
Word Count: 86,170
Average Goodreads Rating: 3.75 out of 5 stars
My rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Faith thought she was a normal human girl. Then she turned 18 and started developing abilities. Around the same time, a mysterious girl named Belle showed up and explained to Faith that she was really a Halfling, who belonged to an alien planet. Not only that, but she had the powerful ability of Forewarning, a skill that was highly coveted, especially by the Loverias and the Wincrests, two rival royal families on the brink of going to war with each other. Things get even more complicated when Faith forms a mated bond with Prince Davio Loveriaā right before finding out her long-absent father is Prince Alexo Wincrest, Davioās sworn enemy.
Caught in an impending war on a foreign planet, Faith must think and learn fast to keep herself from becoming a political pawn while also keeping her family safe.
Faith is a fucking badass and I love her. She acts like a teenaged girl, with all the angst and drama that comes with it, but at the same times sheās smart, and she wonāt take shit, especially not from Davio. I love how resourceful she is and how quickly sheās able to adapt to a foreign planet with different cultures and abilities. But at the same time, sheās not a Mary Sue. She does have issues with learning the culture and controlling her abilities. She also doesnāt deal well with having her world turned upside down but her reactions arenāt unrealistic and they make me love her that much more.
Davio, however, is a piece of shit. I knocked off a star just because he exists. Heās a pompous brat with less maturity and poise than a two-year-old. When he finally accepts that heās mated to Faith, he shows his āloveā by controlling her and ordering her around. He doesnāt let her be alone because she needs to be protected. He demands that she either be with him or one of his bodyguards at all time, effectively keeping her a prisoner. This is supposedly because she has Forewarning, which makes her likely to get kidnapped or killed. I would have an easier time believing that if she had ever gotten attacked in the book. But the only people who attack her are Davioās own bodyguards. No one else gives a shit.
He also loves ordering her around. Heāll order her to get showered and dressed in two minutes. He also orders her to betray her father. Davio is actually shocked when Faith wonāt give him intimate secrets about how to take down her father. He accuses her of being a traitor when she refuses to be part of any plan that will get her father killed or kidnapped.
Davio hates Faithās father for being from the wrong country, he always thinks heās right, and heās controlling to boot. Heās basically teenaged Trump.
Davio is the biggest problem in the book. Almost everything else I enjoyed. I loved the world building and how the mated bond was portrayed. Even though Faith and Davio were connected through the bond and couldnāt be apart very long without feeling anxious and depressed, they werenāt brainwashed by it. They still didnāt trust or even love each other for most of the book and they could identify what feelings were real and what was from the bond. Itās rare when a book can have soulmates without having insta-love, but Protector pulled it off.
Iām still confused by Faithās parents, however. Faithās mother raised her by herself on Earth after getting abandoned by Alexo. But when he shows up eighteen years later and has a brief conversation with her, sheās completely willing to travel to a foreign planet, be banned from going back to Earth. She also needs to pretend to be his wife despite hating him for abandoning her. I honestly have no idea why but that might get explained in later books.
Word Count: 86,170
Average Goodreads Rating: 3.75 out of 5 stars
My rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Faith thought she was a normal human girl. Then she turned 18 and started developing abilities. Around the same time, a mysterious girl named Belle showed up and explained to Faith that she was really a Halfling, who belonged to an alien planet. Not only that, but she had the powerful ability of Forewarning, a skill that was highly coveted, especially by the Loverias and the Wincrests, two rival royal families on the brink of going to war with each other. Things get even more complicated when Faith forms a mated bond with Prince Davio Loveriaā right before finding out her long-absent father is Prince Alexo Wincrest, Davioās sworn enemy.
Caught in an impending war on a foreign planet, Faith must think and learn fast to keep herself from becoming a political pawn while also keeping her family safe.
Faith is a fucking badass and I love her. She acts like a teenaged girl, with all the angst and drama that comes with it, but at the same times sheās smart, and she wonāt take shit, especially not from Davio. I love how resourceful she is and how quickly sheās able to adapt to a foreign planet with different cultures and abilities. But at the same time, sheās not a Mary Sue. She does have issues with learning the culture and controlling her abilities. She also doesnāt deal well with having her world turned upside down but her reactions arenāt unrealistic and they make me love her that much more.
Davio, however, is a piece of shit. I knocked off a star just because he exists. Heās a pompous brat with less maturity and poise than a two-year-old. When he finally accepts that heās mated to Faith, he shows his āloveā by controlling her and ordering her around. He doesnāt let her be alone because she needs to be protected. He demands that she either be with him or one of his bodyguards at all time, effectively keeping her a prisoner. This is supposedly because she has Forewarning, which makes her likely to get kidnapped or killed. I would have an easier time believing that if she had ever gotten attacked in the book. But the only people who attack her are Davioās own bodyguards. No one else gives a shit.
He also loves ordering her around. Heāll order her to get showered and dressed in two minutes. He also orders her to betray her father. Davio is actually shocked when Faith wonāt give him intimate secrets about how to take down her father. He accuses her of being a traitor when she refuses to be part of any plan that will get her father killed or kidnapped.
Davio hates Faithās father for being from the wrong country, he always thinks heās right, and heās controlling to boot. Heās basically teenaged Trump.
Davio is the biggest problem in the book. Almost everything else I enjoyed. I loved the world building and how the mated bond was portrayed. Even though Faith and Davio were connected through the bond and couldnāt be apart very long without feeling anxious and depressed, they werenāt brainwashed by it. They still didnāt trust or even love each other for most of the book and they could identify what feelings were real and what was from the bond. Itās rare when a book can have soulmates without having insta-love, but Protector pulled it off.
Iām still confused by Faithās parents, however. Faithās mother raised her by herself on Earth after getting abandoned by Alexo. But when he shows up eighteen years later and has a brief conversation with her, sheās completely willing to travel to a foreign planet, be banned from going back to Earth. She also needs to pretend to be his wife despite hating him for abandoning her. I honestly have no idea why but that might get explained in later books.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Glory Road (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Sports films have long been a popular genre in Hollywood as classics such as Pride of the Yankees, The Natural, and Raging Bull are all examples of some of the finest examples of sports films which encapsulate the very essence of the sport they portray.
In the new film Glory Road Josh Lucas stars as Don Haskins, a girls Basketball coach who is given the chance to coach a Division 1 team at Texas Western in 1966.
The small school cannot offer the coach much in the way of amenities as Don and his family are required to live in the studentās dorm. Since his dreams of playing pro ball came to a halt after a knee injury, Haskins looks at his job as a chance for him to make a name for himself.
The task will be daunting as Texas Western is a very small school that puts the majority of its athletic budget into the football program leaving next to no money for the gym, new equipment, and recruiting of players.
After a frustrating attempt to recruit players at a local invitational, Haskins sets his sites on a young African American player who while big on attitude, is also big on potential.
With scholarships to offer, Haskins and his staff travel the nation and shock the conservative school by offering scholarships to 8 African American players. In a day and age when teams had at most 1-2 African American players; many of whom did not see much playing time; this is a risky move for the coach.
Undaunted, the coach begins the process of integrating his new players with his current players all of whom are Caucasian, which leads to some tension over starting rights, abilities, and styles.
Haskins is a no nonsense coach who is very strict in regards to grades, effort in practice, and above all avoiding late nights and carousing while the season is underway. Despite this, many players decide to test the will of the coach which raises issues of commitment to the team and discipline, all of which are standard staples of sports films.
When the season starts, a funny thing happens. Not only is the coach playing his African American players in a heavy rotation, but little Texas Western is winning their games and beating some of the more noted teams in the country in the process.
As their notoriety increases so does the amount of hostility directed towards the team from racially incensed fans who do not like the make up of the team and especially hate their success.
Despite this, the team finds itself in the National Championship game against powerful Kentucky coached by the legendary Adolph Rupp (Jon Voight), where Haskins makes history by starting and playing only his African American players which is a first in NCAA finals history.
While the marketing and trailers for the film certainly do not hesitate from telling you most of the above and underscoring that the team ends up in the finals and that the film is based on a true story, it is not about the final results, it is about the journey the team took getting there.
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer is a master at knowing what the fans want and director James Gartner gives viewers a by the number film that delivers the goods. Yes, the film heavily uses all the sporting clichƩs from the ailing player, the us against the world mentality, the team of misfits, and so on all of which combines to offer little cinematic tension as it is very clear early on and from the ads where this film will end up.
Despite tipping their hand early and throughout, the filmmakers have decided not to rock the boat and have stuck with a tried and true formula that results with a winning albeit very predictable film.
Lucas does a solid job in the roll and makes the best of the material he has to work with. The game sequences are well managed and rousing which had members of my preview audience cheering.
While it offers little originality, Glory Road is a lot of fun, and despite mining every clichƩ in the book, is an entertaining time at the movies.
In the new film Glory Road Josh Lucas stars as Don Haskins, a girls Basketball coach who is given the chance to coach a Division 1 team at Texas Western in 1966.
The small school cannot offer the coach much in the way of amenities as Don and his family are required to live in the studentās dorm. Since his dreams of playing pro ball came to a halt after a knee injury, Haskins looks at his job as a chance for him to make a name for himself.
The task will be daunting as Texas Western is a very small school that puts the majority of its athletic budget into the football program leaving next to no money for the gym, new equipment, and recruiting of players.
After a frustrating attempt to recruit players at a local invitational, Haskins sets his sites on a young African American player who while big on attitude, is also big on potential.
With scholarships to offer, Haskins and his staff travel the nation and shock the conservative school by offering scholarships to 8 African American players. In a day and age when teams had at most 1-2 African American players; many of whom did not see much playing time; this is a risky move for the coach.
Undaunted, the coach begins the process of integrating his new players with his current players all of whom are Caucasian, which leads to some tension over starting rights, abilities, and styles.
Haskins is a no nonsense coach who is very strict in regards to grades, effort in practice, and above all avoiding late nights and carousing while the season is underway. Despite this, many players decide to test the will of the coach which raises issues of commitment to the team and discipline, all of which are standard staples of sports films.
When the season starts, a funny thing happens. Not only is the coach playing his African American players in a heavy rotation, but little Texas Western is winning their games and beating some of the more noted teams in the country in the process.
As their notoriety increases so does the amount of hostility directed towards the team from racially incensed fans who do not like the make up of the team and especially hate their success.
Despite this, the team finds itself in the National Championship game against powerful Kentucky coached by the legendary Adolph Rupp (Jon Voight), where Haskins makes history by starting and playing only his African American players which is a first in NCAA finals history.
While the marketing and trailers for the film certainly do not hesitate from telling you most of the above and underscoring that the team ends up in the finals and that the film is based on a true story, it is not about the final results, it is about the journey the team took getting there.
Producer Jerry Bruckheimer is a master at knowing what the fans want and director James Gartner gives viewers a by the number film that delivers the goods. Yes, the film heavily uses all the sporting clichƩs from the ailing player, the us against the world mentality, the team of misfits, and so on all of which combines to offer little cinematic tension as it is very clear early on and from the ads where this film will end up.
Despite tipping their hand early and throughout, the filmmakers have decided not to rock the boat and have stuck with a tried and true formula that results with a winning albeit very predictable film.
Lucas does a solid job in the roll and makes the best of the material he has to work with. The game sequences are well managed and rousing which had members of my preview audience cheering.
While it offers little originality, Glory Road is a lot of fun, and despite mining every clichƩ in the book, is an entertaining time at the movies.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
āTrialā is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
