Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Sep 19, 2020
The first major blockbuster Spider-Man movie hasn't aged particularly well, but it's overflowing with charm and a great cast.
Watching this as an adult is still as much fun as it was back in 2002 (when I was a fresh faced 13 year old). Tobey Maguire, Willem Defoe, James Franco, Kirsten Dunst, Cliff Robertson, Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons - all of them are really well cast and bring their comic book counterparts to life in a way that captured the imaginations of comic fans everywhere, all backed up by a fantastic score by Danny Elfman.
It's faults are few, but mainly in line with the first X-Men film - it's just doesn't quite stand up compared to comic films today and suffers from sub standard CGI and an early 2000s time stamp - I must say though - I have a special kind of love for the borderline Power Rangers villain costume that Green Goblin gets to wear...
Spider-Man is an important milestone in bringing comic books to the big screen, and will surely be enjoyed for years to come.
Watching this as an adult is still as much fun as it was back in 2002 (when I was a fresh faced 13 year old). Tobey Maguire, Willem Defoe, James Franco, Kirsten Dunst, Cliff Robertson, Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons - all of them are really well cast and bring their comic book counterparts to life in a way that captured the imaginations of comic fans everywhere, all backed up by a fantastic score by Danny Elfman.
It's faults are few, but mainly in line with the first X-Men film - it's just doesn't quite stand up compared to comic films today and suffers from sub standard CGI and an early 2000s time stamp - I must say though - I have a special kind of love for the borderline Power Rangers villain costume that Green Goblin gets to wear...
Spider-Man is an important milestone in bringing comic books to the big screen, and will surely be enjoyed for years to come.
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated The Disaster Artist (2017) in Movies
Jan 30, 2018
James Franco (1 more)
The tone
Far from a disaster
If you haven't seen The Room, then I urge you to do so at once. It's a bemusing, confusing, unintentionally hilarious 90 odd minutes that fully deserves all the cult screenings and bewildered wonder that it has garnered over the years. It's without question a perfect awful movie. And here with The Disaster Artist, based on the book of the same name, we get to see the story of just went on to get this film made.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Why Him? (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When an “out of touch” Midwesterner owner of a paper factory (Bryan Cranston) decides to take his family to California to spend Christmas with his college student daughter (Zoey Deutch) and meet her new tech-millionaire, but socially inept boyfriend (James Franco), a typical father vs boyfriend faceoff ensues. For many, Why Him? will be enough to satisfy the comedy itch. Those expecting to find the next gut busting comedy will be disappointed, while those thinking it will be a dull comedy will be pleasantly surprised. This film is somewhere in the middle. A constant stream of chuckles with a few bigger laughs here or there. But ultimately forgettable at the lack of main characters to root for.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
Right-wing Spain in the Civil War Era: Soldiers of God and Apostles of the Fatherland, 1914-1945
Miguel Angel del Arco, Alejandro Quiroga, Francisco Romero Salvado and Christopher Bannister
Book
Right-Wing Spain in the Civil War Era explores the lives of the leading Spanish conservatives in the...
Keres: Move by Move
Book
Estonian grandmaster Paul Keres is one of the greatest players in chess history. Along with Viktor...
Arctic Justice: Thunder Squad (2018)
2.0
Rate It
Movie
Swifty the Arctic fox works in the mail room of the Arctic Blast Delivery Service but dreams of one...
animation
After the Crash
Book
'Riveting! Bussi spins psychological suspense at its finest with this consuming tale of one child,...
RI
Ruling Ideas: How Global Neoliberalism Goes Local
Book
Neoliberal economic theories are powerful because their domestic translators make them go local,...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Godfather (1972) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020 (Updated Sep 21, 2020)
"𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘯𝘢ï𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥... 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥."
"𝘖𝘩 -- 𝘸𝘩𝘰'𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘢ï𝘷𝘦, 𝘒𝘢𝘺?"
Well I guess it's confirmed that this movie predicted Jefferey Epstein.
Have absolutely nothing constructive left to add that hasn't already been rightfully said by everybody else at this point, it's 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘥𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 - yes it's still a masterpiece. Brando gives the second greatest performance cinema has ever seen in this emotionally rich, lived-in, unstoppable portrait of a vaguely incomprehensible mob boss who is both insatiably bound to and undone by tradition - acting of this caliber is topped only by, you guessed it... James Franco in 𝘚𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘉𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴! This isn't really all that secretly deep or anything either - it's just really good at what it does. Does the seemingly unachievable task of making a bunch of mob guys sitting around discussing business so fucking riveting. Pacino sits firmly in one of the quintessential starmaking performances, not a single less than exemplary performance can even be found here. The front half of the last hour is rather sloppy, jumping around uncomfortably between times - but remains nonetheless mesmerizing and spotlessly written. And how about that location cinematography? A sprawling, hypnotic dirge - you could write a novel about how amazing this is, and I'm sure people already have.
"𝘖𝘩 -- 𝘸𝘩𝘰'𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘢ï𝘷𝘦, 𝘒𝘢𝘺?"
Well I guess it's confirmed that this movie predicted Jefferey Epstein.
Have absolutely nothing constructive left to add that hasn't already been rightfully said by everybody else at this point, it's 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘥𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 - yes it's still a masterpiece. Brando gives the second greatest performance cinema has ever seen in this emotionally rich, lived-in, unstoppable portrait of a vaguely incomprehensible mob boss who is both insatiably bound to and undone by tradition - acting of this caliber is topped only by, you guessed it... James Franco in 𝘚𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘉𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴! This isn't really all that secretly deep or anything either - it's just really good at what it does. Does the seemingly unachievable task of making a bunch of mob guys sitting around discussing business so fucking riveting. Pacino sits firmly in one of the quintessential starmaking performances, not a single less than exemplary performance can even be found here. The front half of the last hour is rather sloppy, jumping around uncomfortably between times - but remains nonetheless mesmerizing and spotlessly written. And how about that location cinematography? A sprawling, hypnotic dirge - you could write a novel about how amazing this is, and I'm sure people already have.
Ali A (78 KP) rated The Fountains of Silence in Books
Jun 1, 2020
The Fountains of Silence is about Texan teen Daniel visiting Francisco Franco's Spain in the 1950's. Franco is a dictator who needs business men to invest in his country so he opens it to Americans. Daniel visits with his parents to see his mother's birthplace. Ana works at the hotel Daniel and his parents are staying in and is assigned to their rooms. Daniel and Ana quickly become friends but Ana is guarded with him. Her family were Republicans, those who were against Franco's rein, and now are either shunned to live as second class citizens or died horrific deaths. Daniel quickly learns that Spain isn't what the government likes to show and there are secrets everyone is hiding.
I was fascinated with this novel as it's something I have never really learned of this time in history in school. I knew of before, during World War II, but never afterward with Franco's dictation. I cared about the characters and wanted to know the outcome. I could tell when some things would happen and cried during some of them too.
It was a heartfelt novel set in a dark time that had family and love and exploration. A must read for historical fiction readers and lovers of Ruta Sepetys.
I was fascinated with this novel as it's something I have never really learned of this time in history in school. I knew of before, during World War II, but never afterward with Franco's dictation. I cared about the characters and wanted to know the outcome. I could tell when some things would happen and cried during some of them too.
It was a heartfelt novel set in a dark time that had family and love and exploration. A must read for historical fiction readers and lovers of Ruta Sepetys.