Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2018) in Movies
Feb 23, 2018
Come for Denzel, stay for...well...there isn't much else to stay for
Denzel Washington is one of the finest actors of his generation. A charismatic screen presence, he commands the viewer's attention whether he is performing a comedy, drama or action film. He has won 2 Oscars as a performer and has been nominated for his acting 6 other times - including (rightfully so) for his performance as the titular character in ROMAN J ISRAEL, ESQ.
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Letters to Ethan: A Grandfather's Legacy of Life & Love in Books
Feb 11, 2019
Right from the beginning, I found the seriousness to which the author, Tom McQueen, approaches his role as a grandfather to his grandson, Ethan, as both endearing and worthy of my respect. What he is attempting to do with the letters found in this book is a commendable goal that not many grandparents may go through the trouble to achieve. Each "chapter" of the book is actually a four-to-six page letter and headed by a quotation that applies to the topic of the letter. Each of the letters address a specific topic, such as Heroism, Risk, Integrity, Love, and Imagination, to name a few. Some of the letters also include excerpts from other sources that McQueen finds wisdom in, such as poetry or short stories like the famous story "Footprints in the Sand." Many of the letters make references to sports and sports imagery, such as citing Wayne Gretsky's accomplishments, which is certainly appropriate for most boys. The letters are also peppered with poignant memories of McQueen's and bits of history, such as the story of George Washington Carver.
It becomes apparent in the first letter that this book has a decidedly Roman Catholic slant, and many of the letters include Catholic doctrine teachings. If the reader does not prescribe to Roman Catholicism, this can be a major obstacle to enjoying this book. The other thing that bugs me throughout the text is that I can not figure out at what age the author intended his grandson to read these letters. Some of the topics are rather mature, and they would not be appropriate for a boy that is too young to receive the advice given in the letter, no matter how well-meaning it is. I also could not decipher if McQueen's grandson, Ethan, was supposed to read these letters while his grandfather was still alive or if they were meant for after he passed - again, this would make sense if the appropriate age were given for each letter.
If I ignore the obvious bias in the letters, I found much of the advice given to be relevant and useful wisdom for a young man - or woman - attaining to adulthood.
It becomes apparent in the first letter that this book has a decidedly Roman Catholic slant, and many of the letters include Catholic doctrine teachings. If the reader does not prescribe to Roman Catholicism, this can be a major obstacle to enjoying this book. The other thing that bugs me throughout the text is that I can not figure out at what age the author intended his grandson to read these letters. Some of the topics are rather mature, and they would not be appropriate for a boy that is too young to receive the advice given in the letter, no matter how well-meaning it is. I also could not decipher if McQueen's grandson, Ethan, was supposed to read these letters while his grandfather was still alive or if they were meant for after he passed - again, this would make sense if the appropriate age were given for each letter.
If I ignore the obvious bias in the letters, I found much of the advice given to be relevant and useful wisdom for a young man - or woman - attaining to adulthood.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020) in Movies
Jan 30, 2021
Boseman is amazing
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is the latest adaptation of the works of August Wilson brought to us by producer Denzel Washington, following on from the 2016 adaptation of Fences that earned Viola Davis a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Here Washington hands over the directing reins to Tony award winner George C. Wolfe, while Viola Davis returns as the titular Ma Rainey.
Set in 1920s Chicago, the film follows a tense and fractious recording session with Ma Rainey and her backing band, old hands Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo) and Slow Drag (Michael Potts) alongside ambitious young horn player Levee (Chadwick Boseman). Tensions rise between Ma, Levee and the recording studio management (Jeremy Shamos as Irvin and Jonny Coyne as Sturdyvant) as each attempts to control the recording session and play songs that fit best with their own motives. Contributing to the frictions are Levee’s flirtation with Ma’s girlfriend Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige) and her Ma’s stuttering nephew Sylvester (Dusan Brown) as he attempts to introduce Ma’s signature song, Black Bottom.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom undoubtedly looks and sounds good. The cinematography and costumes are perfect and entirely in keeping with the 20s Chicago setting. And the blues music is captivating and beautifully made. To be quite honest I would’ve been quite happy to watch and listen to an entire film solely following the band and their music. However whilst it does look and sound good, it is so obviously a film adapted from a stage play and I’m afraid this isn’t a good thing. There’s a limited number of sets and virtually the entirety of the 90 minute run time is set within two rooms in the recording studio, which makes such a short film feel ridiculously drawn out. This isn’t helped by the huge reliance on very long scripted dialogue and conversational scenes. I can’t deny that the writing is good and is helped by strong performances from everyone involved, but there’s just too much dialogue. This might work on the stage, but on screen it doesn’t quite translate. There’s that much dialogue that the majority of scenes become too heavy and bogged down and sadly almost entirely forgettable. For me a film needs to balance dialogue with actual events and actions, and I’m afraid aside from the final act, nothing much happens here.
Fortunately this is at least boosted by some stellar performances. Viola Davis is brilliant as the spirited Ma Rainey, even if Ma herself as a character is rather unlikeable with some questionable motives for her actions and manners. The star however is the late Chadwick Boseman. While it’s very off putting to see how obviously thin and ill he was filming this, his performance is outstanding. He brings life and fun and heart to every scene he’s in and gives this film a massive boost. Even the drawn out dialogue heavy scenes become enthralling when he’s talking and the emotions on show are spectacular. Despite Viola Davis being the star as Ma, it’s Boseman that carried this film entirely on his shoulders. If he doesn’t win a posthumous Oscar for this, it’d be criminal.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is a shining example of stellar performances, most notably Chadwick Boseman. It’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite meet the high standards set by its stars.
Set in 1920s Chicago, the film follows a tense and fractious recording session with Ma Rainey and her backing band, old hands Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo) and Slow Drag (Michael Potts) alongside ambitious young horn player Levee (Chadwick Boseman). Tensions rise between Ma, Levee and the recording studio management (Jeremy Shamos as Irvin and Jonny Coyne as Sturdyvant) as each attempts to control the recording session and play songs that fit best with their own motives. Contributing to the frictions are Levee’s flirtation with Ma’s girlfriend Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige) and her Ma’s stuttering nephew Sylvester (Dusan Brown) as he attempts to introduce Ma’s signature song, Black Bottom.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom undoubtedly looks and sounds good. The cinematography and costumes are perfect and entirely in keeping with the 20s Chicago setting. And the blues music is captivating and beautifully made. To be quite honest I would’ve been quite happy to watch and listen to an entire film solely following the band and their music. However whilst it does look and sound good, it is so obviously a film adapted from a stage play and I’m afraid this isn’t a good thing. There’s a limited number of sets and virtually the entirety of the 90 minute run time is set within two rooms in the recording studio, which makes such a short film feel ridiculously drawn out. This isn’t helped by the huge reliance on very long scripted dialogue and conversational scenes. I can’t deny that the writing is good and is helped by strong performances from everyone involved, but there’s just too much dialogue. This might work on the stage, but on screen it doesn’t quite translate. There’s that much dialogue that the majority of scenes become too heavy and bogged down and sadly almost entirely forgettable. For me a film needs to balance dialogue with actual events and actions, and I’m afraid aside from the final act, nothing much happens here.
Fortunately this is at least boosted by some stellar performances. Viola Davis is brilliant as the spirited Ma Rainey, even if Ma herself as a character is rather unlikeable with some questionable motives for her actions and manners. The star however is the late Chadwick Boseman. While it’s very off putting to see how obviously thin and ill he was filming this, his performance is outstanding. He brings life and fun and heart to every scene he’s in and gives this film a massive boost. Even the drawn out dialogue heavy scenes become enthralling when he’s talking and the emotions on show are spectacular. Despite Viola Davis being the star as Ma, it’s Boseman that carried this film entirely on his shoulders. If he doesn’t win a posthumous Oscar for this, it’d be criminal.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is a shining example of stellar performances, most notably Chadwick Boseman. It’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite meet the high standards set by its stars.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jan 21, 2019
Good movie with 2 GREAT performances
Writer/Director Adam McKay was known for years as the writing partner/director of Will Ferrell, having written and directed such comedy gems as ANCHORMAN, TALLADEGA NIGHTS and STEP BROTHERS and then, in 2015, he stepped out of Ferrell's shadow - and the comedy world - and delivered the multi-Oscar nominated film THE BIG SHORT, a fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at the financial crisis of the mid-2000's.
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated McLintock! (1963) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Solid Visuals but Nothing Else
A cattle baron’s wife returns after a two-year separation wanting a divorce.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
Acting: 10
It’s a tough task to ask someone not to like John Wayne and the things he brings to the big screen. He has a distinct way of capturing your attention and holding it with his no-nonsense demeanor and sheer bad-assery. I enjoyed the other performances as well, but, for me, it always goes back to Wayne and your sheer desire as a viewer to see what he’s going to do or say next.
Beginning: 2
Not a strong start in the least. Even past the first ten minutes, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out just what the hell the plot was. A beginning that is mired in confusion is not a very good beginning at all.
Characters: 7
I’ll admit, George Washington McLintock is probably someone I would like to have a glass of whiskey with. He’s charming and doesn’t take any guff from anyone. Other fun characters included the Native American guy (whose name slips me right now) and Drago. If it weren’t for McLintock’s wife who was just a horrible character to deal with the entire movie, this category would have scored higher.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 6
It’s hard to really appreciate conflict when you don’t know fully what the story is about. Throughout the movie, I was never really grabbed as there wasn’t enough action to keep me fully entertained. It’s like watching two dudes square up a bar, but all they do is push each other the whole time. I wanted more and damned if McLintock! wanted to give it to me.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 6
One of the reasons I will review a movie well after having seen it is to gauge how memorable it is. How many scenes stick out in my head days, weeks, sometimes months later? The answer as it relates to McLintock!: Not a whole damn lot. I remember one scene where they were fighting in a mud slide. I also remember a spanking. Outside of that…nothing. Mind you, I just watched this movie two months ago.
Pace: 7
Once the movie picks up, it holds on pretty consistently. Outside of a couple small lulls, it managed to hold my attention and keep me entertained enough to want to see what would happen next. I love movies and pacing is extremely important to me. It’s too bad the pacing here wasn’t enough to alter the overall strength of the movie.
Plot: 7
Yes, I finally figured out what the story was about. Once I had a better sense, it made the overall movie a bit more enjoyable. Pretty straightforward, we are looking at something that was good, not great.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 62
So why did I dislike this movie so much? Outside of a terrible beginning and ending, I think a lot of it has to do with Mrs. McLintock’s character. She was just a ghastly person, plain and simple, with not a redeeming characteristic in her body. And I don’t think she was even meant to be a villain, yet that’s how she came across. Probably won’t be watching McLintock! again anytime soon.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020) in Movies
Feb 12, 2021
Give Chadwick the Oscar
Pulitzer Prize winning Playwright August Wilson wrote 10 plays that he labeled his “Century Cycle” - one placed in each decade of the 20th century that depicts the Negro experience in America. Denzel Washington has pledged to produce a film for each one of these plays.
The first film, FENCES (2016), earned Viola Davis an Oscar and was nominated for Best Film. The 2nd film, MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM looks to be just as awarded.
Set in a recording studio in Chicago in the 1920’s (the only play of Wilson’s Century Cycle NOT set in Pittsburgh), MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM tells the story of a recording session for Ma Rainey and her band.
Nominated for the Tony for Best Play of 1984, MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM is the perfect stage play, for it takes place in one room - the recording studio. The problem with turning this into a film is that Director George C. Wolf felt compelled to “open things up” and added scenes, mostly at the beginning of the film, that takes you out of the studio. He also included Ma Rainey in some of these scenes, thus taking away the power of her entrance about 1/3 of the way into the story. These added scenes add nothing to the story and waters down some of the strength that being confined in one place brings.
But, oh, with performances and dialogue like this, those things are quickly forgotten.
Davis, of course, is stellar as Ma Rainey grabbing the spotlight and commanding the room with her presence. Ma Rainey (and Davis) are not to be trifled with and this is a powerhouse performance, so much so that I can forgive the film for having Davis’ voice dubbed for much of her singing performance.
But…Davis performance pales in comparison to the elite level work of Chadwick Boseman in the central role of trumpet player Levee who has some demons to unpack, demons that drive both his artistic and emotional self. This is a difficult character to root for, but Boseman’s charm shines through and mixed with his rage and sadness, makes for a potent combination and an interesting character to watch. Adding to the poignancy of the performance is the knowledge that this as Boseman’s last role before succumbing to cancer.
Colman Domingo (my favorite actor in FEAR THE WALKING DEAD) brings a strong grounding to the preceedings in the role of Cutler while veteran character actor Glynn Turman (who I remember from the 1970’s mini-series CENTENNIAL) is at a career best as another musician, Toledo. Most of the film (and play) consist of Cutler, Toledo and Levee talking, arguing, bantering and pontificating and these 3 are more than up to this challenge.
All of this, of course, would not be possible without the power of the original stage play script by August Wilson. This work was ably adapted to the screen by Ruben Santiago-Hudson (a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination).
A very strong, very interesting tale with some very moving performances makes MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM a worthy Oscar-type film that should be checked out by all.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
The first film, FENCES (2016), earned Viola Davis an Oscar and was nominated for Best Film. The 2nd film, MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM looks to be just as awarded.
Set in a recording studio in Chicago in the 1920’s (the only play of Wilson’s Century Cycle NOT set in Pittsburgh), MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM tells the story of a recording session for Ma Rainey and her band.
Nominated for the Tony for Best Play of 1984, MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM is the perfect stage play, for it takes place in one room - the recording studio. The problem with turning this into a film is that Director George C. Wolf felt compelled to “open things up” and added scenes, mostly at the beginning of the film, that takes you out of the studio. He also included Ma Rainey in some of these scenes, thus taking away the power of her entrance about 1/3 of the way into the story. These added scenes add nothing to the story and waters down some of the strength that being confined in one place brings.
But, oh, with performances and dialogue like this, those things are quickly forgotten.
Davis, of course, is stellar as Ma Rainey grabbing the spotlight and commanding the room with her presence. Ma Rainey (and Davis) are not to be trifled with and this is a powerhouse performance, so much so that I can forgive the film for having Davis’ voice dubbed for much of her singing performance.
But…Davis performance pales in comparison to the elite level work of Chadwick Boseman in the central role of trumpet player Levee who has some demons to unpack, demons that drive both his artistic and emotional self. This is a difficult character to root for, but Boseman’s charm shines through and mixed with his rage and sadness, makes for a potent combination and an interesting character to watch. Adding to the poignancy of the performance is the knowledge that this as Boseman’s last role before succumbing to cancer.
Colman Domingo (my favorite actor in FEAR THE WALKING DEAD) brings a strong grounding to the preceedings in the role of Cutler while veteran character actor Glynn Turman (who I remember from the 1970’s mini-series CENTENNIAL) is at a career best as another musician, Toledo. Most of the film (and play) consist of Cutler, Toledo and Levee talking, arguing, bantering and pontificating and these 3 are more than up to this challenge.
All of this, of course, would not be possible without the power of the original stage play script by August Wilson. This work was ably adapted to the screen by Ruben Santiago-Hudson (a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination).
A very strong, very interesting tale with some very moving performances makes MA RAINEY’S BLACK BOTTOM a worthy Oscar-type film that should be checked out by all.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Fantastic (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Dysfunctionally functional.
The second of my catch-up films for next Sunday’s Oscars, this time featuring Viggo Mortensen who is up for a Best Actor Oscar.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.