Search
Two Weeks in the Midday Sun: A Cannes Notebook
Book
A paragon of cinema criticism for decades, Roger Ebert--with his humor, sagacity, and no-nonsense...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Matt Damon asked Christian Bale how he had managed to lose almost 70lbs for his role as Ken Miles, following his chubbing up to play Dick Cheney in Vice the previous year. Bale just smiled, shrugged and said, “I didn’t eat”. Such is his reputation for playing real people with 100% commitment, apocryphal or not, I totally believe that is true.
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Darren (1599 KP) rated The 33 (2015) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: The 33 starts as we follow our Chilean miners including family man Mario Sepulveda (Banderas) and safety inspector Don Lucho (Phillips) who is reluctantly backs down from their boss about the conditions inside the mine, believing the mountain will start to collapse in on itself.
When the mine does collapse, it leaves all 33 miners trapped hoping they might get rescued, well that is inside the mine. Outside the mine the miner’s families led by Maria Segovia (Binoche) demanded answers and help from the government with Laurence Golborne (Santoro) calling the shots, doing the best he can to find a way to rescue the miners. This is the incredible story of how the Chilean miners survived and were rescued.
Thoughts on The 33
Characters/Performance – The film is based on the real people involved, Mario is the one that takes control inside the mine, the reluctant hero even against the odds. Laurence is the government man that must do the right thing while working with the experts as well as keep the families happy. Maria is the sister of one of the miners and leads the protest to find answers about her brother and other miners.
Performance wise, Banderas shows himself to be the biggest star within the mine, we do get strange casting choices up next because we have a French actress playing a Chilean lady, and Irish man as a Chilean. But away from this we have good performances all around from the whole cast.
Story – The story is one that we all followed on the news, it was one of the most must watch news stories of the 21st Century. Seeing the amazing story of how the men survived, the way a small town can together to bring a nation, then the world to see, beg and pray for these men is an incredible story of courage, strength and belief in the human race.
Biography/History – While we don’t truly get to know the men personally, we do see the 69 days that changed their lives. This will go down in history as one of our moments of greatness as a human race.
Settings – The film is set between the mine which shows us just how trapped the character will be but we also see how the family members are working towards rescue.
Final Thoughts – This is an incredible story that was one we followed and seeing this brings back the memories but in places this is slightly slow.
Overall: Great glimpse into history.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/03/27/a-z-bonus-review-month-the-33-2015/
When the mine does collapse, it leaves all 33 miners trapped hoping they might get rescued, well that is inside the mine. Outside the mine the miner’s families led by Maria Segovia (Binoche) demanded answers and help from the government with Laurence Golborne (Santoro) calling the shots, doing the best he can to find a way to rescue the miners. This is the incredible story of how the Chilean miners survived and were rescued.
Thoughts on The 33
Characters/Performance – The film is based on the real people involved, Mario is the one that takes control inside the mine, the reluctant hero even against the odds. Laurence is the government man that must do the right thing while working with the experts as well as keep the families happy. Maria is the sister of one of the miners and leads the protest to find answers about her brother and other miners.
Performance wise, Banderas shows himself to be the biggest star within the mine, we do get strange casting choices up next because we have a French actress playing a Chilean lady, and Irish man as a Chilean. But away from this we have good performances all around from the whole cast.
Story – The story is one that we all followed on the news, it was one of the most must watch news stories of the 21st Century. Seeing the amazing story of how the men survived, the way a small town can together to bring a nation, then the world to see, beg and pray for these men is an incredible story of courage, strength and belief in the human race.
Biography/History – While we don’t truly get to know the men personally, we do see the 69 days that changed their lives. This will go down in history as one of our moments of greatness as a human race.
Settings – The film is set between the mine which shows us just how trapped the character will be but we also see how the family members are working towards rescue.
Final Thoughts – This is an incredible story that was one we followed and seeing this brings back the memories but in places this is slightly slow.
Overall: Great glimpse into history.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/03/27/a-z-bonus-review-month-the-33-2015/
Darren (1599 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Verdict: Another King Fighting Film
Story: The King starts as the war between the English and the Scots continues to rage on, King Henry IV (Mendlesohn) is getting tired of the bloodshed and disloyalty being found in his own soldiers and with his health getting worse he recalls his son Hal (Chalamet) to his side.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Feb 16, 2020 (Updated Feb 16, 2020)
Frenetic action in murky water - baffling (2 more)
Scientific inconsistencies
Waterlogged Alien wannabe
Soggy and forgettable
I had a sinking feeling (excuse the pun) about this movie from the word go. It's a lazy approach to 'mansplain' the whole set up for the movie through digital news posts during the main titles. It feels more patronising to the audience than having main titles and then a 'Star Wars-style' synopsis.
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959) in Movies
Jan 14, 2020
A Love Story and An Atomic Bomb
An extramarital affair occurs between a Japanese architect and a French filmmaker during the horrific time period when an atomic bomb was dropped. Hiroshima Mon Amour has a wonderful concept, yet there were a few things missing that caused it to miss the mark for me.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The film begins with two lovers locked in a nude embrace. As they exchange dialogue, you feel their sensual connection. It’s not long before that shot cuts to images of people in hospitals deeply affected by the atomic bomb. It’s a harrowing sequence and a wonderful way to start a movie.
Characters: 4
This is probably one of the areas where I struggled the most when watching this movie. I never found myself invested in the two main characters known simply as He (Eiji Okada) and She (Emmanuelle Riva). I don’t know what it was but their stories didn’t move me and their personalities felt a bit flat. Seeing as they were pretty much the only characters that carried any kind of weight, it made it hard to really get into the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Not only is this film beautiful cinematically but It’s easily way ahead of its time. The cuts between sensuality and disaster are just sheer genius. Despite my lack of love for the characters, the movie itself is shot in a way that makes you feel, that leaves a jarring impact on you mentally. Very powerful.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 8
Because of the way it’s shot, the overall impact is strong. Unfortunately the movie itself is boring as all get out. I respect it sheerly for it being ahead of its time and being one of those cinematic pieces standing in a class of its own. At the very least, it will definitely stick out in your brain.
Pace: 6
Interesting at times, boring in others. I can see why people love this movie, but relate moreso to those that don’t. It drags on in a lot of spots where you’re hoping for a speedier resolution.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 3
I originally hated the ending. After going back and watching it again…I just really dislike it. The closure didn’t feel fully established leaving me extremely dissatisfied. Here was a chance for redemption and director Alain Resnais dropped the ball in my opinion.
Overall: 70
Hiroshima Mon Amour has flashes of absolute brilliance. Then those flashes get erased by poop. I think it’s worth a fair shot if you’re into the classics. Who knows, you may disagree with me. After all 89% of audience members did on Rotten Tomatoes.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The film begins with two lovers locked in a nude embrace. As they exchange dialogue, you feel their sensual connection. It’s not long before that shot cuts to images of people in hospitals deeply affected by the atomic bomb. It’s a harrowing sequence and a wonderful way to start a movie.
Characters: 4
This is probably one of the areas where I struggled the most when watching this movie. I never found myself invested in the two main characters known simply as He (Eiji Okada) and She (Emmanuelle Riva). I don’t know what it was but their stories didn’t move me and their personalities felt a bit flat. Seeing as they were pretty much the only characters that carried any kind of weight, it made it hard to really get into the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Not only is this film beautiful cinematically but It’s easily way ahead of its time. The cuts between sensuality and disaster are just sheer genius. Despite my lack of love for the characters, the movie itself is shot in a way that makes you feel, that leaves a jarring impact on you mentally. Very powerful.
Conflict: 5
Entertainment Value: 6
Memorability: 8
Because of the way it’s shot, the overall impact is strong. Unfortunately the movie itself is boring as all get out. I respect it sheerly for it being ahead of its time and being one of those cinematic pieces standing in a class of its own. At the very least, it will definitely stick out in your brain.
Pace: 6
Interesting at times, boring in others. I can see why people love this movie, but relate moreso to those that don’t. It drags on in a lot of spots where you’re hoping for a speedier resolution.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 3
I originally hated the ending. After going back and watching it again…I just really dislike it. The closure didn’t feel fully established leaving me extremely dissatisfied. Here was a chance for redemption and director Alain Resnais dropped the ball in my opinion.
Overall: 70
Hiroshima Mon Amour has flashes of absolute brilliance. Then those flashes get erased by poop. I think it’s worth a fair shot if you’re into the classics. Who knows, you may disagree with me. After all 89% of audience members did on Rotten Tomatoes.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Feb 1, 2020
Will Baby Get Out of the Game?
A young getaway driver finds himself in over his head when he tries to get out of the crime game.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s really hard not to love main character Baby (Ansel Elgort). Sure he’s helping criminals do criminal things but he has a great story and a solid motive. From the minute he shows up on screen beating his steering wheel to the music, you immediately want to root for this guy. Baby answers to Doc played by Kevin Spacey who reads the role with a controlled seriousness that forces you to focus on his every word. Doc along with an interesting gang of thugs make for a solid supporting cast.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Whether it’s two lovebirds in a diner talking or a death-defying car chase, I really appreciate the way Edgar Wright uses different angles to capture the perfect moment. I don’t know how he did it, but the movie has an 80’s feel to it even though it takes place in modern day. The action sequences play out in amazing fashion on screen and keep the story moving.
Conflict: 10
So many angles to consider here. Will Baby get out of the game? Does he get the girl? Will the next heist be a success? Something seems to always be happening whether at the forefront or in the background. This is a movie where you can get up to grab a drink and totally miss something you wish you hadn’t. Not to mention Baby Driver seriously has some of the best car chases in film period.
Entertainment Value: 10
It’s a movie that makes The French Connection car chase look like amateur night. There is so much going on, so many layers, that you will be hardpressed to be bored. It has the feel of an indie with blockbuster moments.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Moves at an extremely high clip. Even the dialogue scenes can feel action-driven at times due to the intensity of the conversation. It’s a movie that never really lets you get too comfortable, but rather continues to hit you repeatedly with more.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 8
While the ending is the weakest point of the movie, it doesn’t detract from the overall greatness of Baby Driver. I wasn’t blown away by the resolution, but it was complete enough to get a pass from me. Good, but not lifechanging.
Overall: 98
In addition to having great action, Baby Driver’s love story helps drive the movie (pun intended) as a whole. It’s movies like these I wish would get more love from the Academy as they help to keep the population in love with film. Proud to call this movie a classic.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
It’s really hard not to love main character Baby (Ansel Elgort). Sure he’s helping criminals do criminal things but he has a great story and a solid motive. From the minute he shows up on screen beating his steering wheel to the music, you immediately want to root for this guy. Baby answers to Doc played by Kevin Spacey who reads the role with a controlled seriousness that forces you to focus on his every word. Doc along with an interesting gang of thugs make for a solid supporting cast.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Whether it’s two lovebirds in a diner talking or a death-defying car chase, I really appreciate the way Edgar Wright uses different angles to capture the perfect moment. I don’t know how he did it, but the movie has an 80’s feel to it even though it takes place in modern day. The action sequences play out in amazing fashion on screen and keep the story moving.
Conflict: 10
So many angles to consider here. Will Baby get out of the game? Does he get the girl? Will the next heist be a success? Something seems to always be happening whether at the forefront or in the background. This is a movie where you can get up to grab a drink and totally miss something you wish you hadn’t. Not to mention Baby Driver seriously has some of the best car chases in film period.
Entertainment Value: 10
It’s a movie that makes The French Connection car chase look like amateur night. There is so much going on, so many layers, that you will be hardpressed to be bored. It has the feel of an indie with blockbuster moments.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Moves at an extremely high clip. Even the dialogue scenes can feel action-driven at times due to the intensity of the conversation. It’s a movie that never really lets you get too comfortable, but rather continues to hit you repeatedly with more.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 8
While the ending is the weakest point of the movie, it doesn’t detract from the overall greatness of Baby Driver. I wasn’t blown away by the resolution, but it was complete enough to get a pass from me. Good, but not lifechanging.
Overall: 98
In addition to having great action, Baby Driver’s love story helps drive the movie (pun intended) as a whole. It’s movies like these I wish would get more love from the Academy as they help to keep the population in love with film. Proud to call this movie a classic.
Gaspar Noe recommended Eraserhead (1977) in Movies (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dom Hemingway (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Dom Hemingway’ is a dark comedy-crime drama movie written and directed by Richard
Shepard (better known for directing the pilot episode of Ugly Betty) and stars
Jude Law, Emilia Clarke, Richard E. Grant, and Demian Bichir.
Dom (Jude Law) is a foul-mouthed, short-tempered, and reckless master safe cracker who
is returning to the streets after 12 years in prison. Intent on collecting his reward for
keeping silent while in prison and fueled by massive amounts of alcohol, drugs, and his
massive ego, Dom and his best friend/partner in crime Dickie (Richard E. Grant) travel
though the British and French country sides to rendevous with Dom’s former employeer
Mr. Fontaine. Shortly thereafter though, Don arrives at the conclusion that no amount
of money can replace what hes’ lost and that his one and only priority is to
seek out his long-lost daughter Evelyn (Emilia Clarke).
Now, this movie is definitely a departure from Jude Law’s previous movies. Imagine him
if he were to gain 29 lbs., dress like an evil ‘Fonz’, and then join ‘Motorhead’.
THAT .. is the Jude Law you get to see in this movie. It’s dark, but fun at the same time.
Most definitely NOT something kids should see. It’s full-speed ahead with sex, drugs,
and rock & roll. When the movie does put on the brakes, it slams on the brakes hard!
Watching the character try to acclimate to the world after 12 years in prison and make
peace with his daughter and her family … it’s like watching a champion’s league
soccer match. One minute one team has it, the next minute the other team has it….
You honestly don’t know what’s going to happen next. Me? Personally? I got a kick out of
this one. My only beef is the way the movie ended … if I told you why though, i’d
be spoiling the movie. For that reason, I give the film 3 out of 5 stars.
Again, a great movie … Dark … but also funny. But the ending? It came just too soon.
Shepard (better known for directing the pilot episode of Ugly Betty) and stars
Jude Law, Emilia Clarke, Richard E. Grant, and Demian Bichir.
Dom (Jude Law) is a foul-mouthed, short-tempered, and reckless master safe cracker who
is returning to the streets after 12 years in prison. Intent on collecting his reward for
keeping silent while in prison and fueled by massive amounts of alcohol, drugs, and his
massive ego, Dom and his best friend/partner in crime Dickie (Richard E. Grant) travel
though the British and French country sides to rendevous with Dom’s former employeer
Mr. Fontaine. Shortly thereafter though, Don arrives at the conclusion that no amount
of money can replace what hes’ lost and that his one and only priority is to
seek out his long-lost daughter Evelyn (Emilia Clarke).
Now, this movie is definitely a departure from Jude Law’s previous movies. Imagine him
if he were to gain 29 lbs., dress like an evil ‘Fonz’, and then join ‘Motorhead’.
THAT .. is the Jude Law you get to see in this movie. It’s dark, but fun at the same time.
Most definitely NOT something kids should see. It’s full-speed ahead with sex, drugs,
and rock & roll. When the movie does put on the brakes, it slams on the brakes hard!
Watching the character try to acclimate to the world after 12 years in prison and make
peace with his daughter and her family … it’s like watching a champion’s league
soccer match. One minute one team has it, the next minute the other team has it….
You honestly don’t know what’s going to happen next. Me? Personally? I got a kick out of
this one. My only beef is the way the movie ended … if I told you why though, i’d
be spoiling the movie. For that reason, I give the film 3 out of 5 stars.
Again, a great movie … Dark … but also funny. But the ending? It came just too soon.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 15, 2022
To start with, there's only so much you can hate on an Agatha Christie adaption. The film could be torrid tripe, but there's still a particular brand of intrigue which always comes with one of her whodunits. This latest re-telling of Death on the Nile just about scrapes by, mainly thanks to its second half, and that aforementioned Christie narrative, but sadly, not much else.
There's glimpses of something good there. Kenneth Branagh can be hit or miss as far as I'm concerned. For every Belfast (soaringly wonderful) there's an Artemis Fowl (what I imagine a lobotomy feels like). This is somewhere in the middle. There are moments of promise sprinkled here and there, but they struggle to break through all the bloated hot air that is draped over everything.
All of the characters are ridiculous. I get that's part of it, but it just falls flat here. It's hard to enjoy comic relief when everyone is comic relief. Gal Gadot seems like she is half-arsing every line. Russell Brand feels jarringly out of place. I traditionally enjoy French & Saunders but they also feel alien in every scene they're in. I know this shouldn't really impact my view, but Armie Hammer look like he just wants to eat everyone he talks to. Even the usually reliable Annette Benning comes across completely disinterested. There's no chemistry anywhere, and it all just feels a bit odd. Branagh is pretty great as Poirot to his credit. He just about holds proceedings together along with Sophie Okonedo, and they both manage to inject some charisma when things become arduous, which is farily regularly.
A bit of a misfire then, but not a complete disaster. I can firmly file Death on the Nile under "films I don't really like, but would probably watch again if it was on TV, or maybe on Christmas day at my Mums house".
There's glimpses of something good there. Kenneth Branagh can be hit or miss as far as I'm concerned. For every Belfast (soaringly wonderful) there's an Artemis Fowl (what I imagine a lobotomy feels like). This is somewhere in the middle. There are moments of promise sprinkled here and there, but they struggle to break through all the bloated hot air that is draped over everything.
All of the characters are ridiculous. I get that's part of it, but it just falls flat here. It's hard to enjoy comic relief when everyone is comic relief. Gal Gadot seems like she is half-arsing every line. Russell Brand feels jarringly out of place. I traditionally enjoy French & Saunders but they also feel alien in every scene they're in. I know this shouldn't really impact my view, but Armie Hammer look like he just wants to eat everyone he talks to. Even the usually reliable Annette Benning comes across completely disinterested. There's no chemistry anywhere, and it all just feels a bit odd. Branagh is pretty great as Poirot to his credit. He just about holds proceedings together along with Sophie Okonedo, and they both manage to inject some charisma when things become arduous, which is farily regularly.
A bit of a misfire then, but not a complete disaster. I can firmly file Death on the Nile under "films I don't really like, but would probably watch again if it was on TV, or maybe on Christmas day at my Mums house".