Search
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Poltergeist (1982) in Movies
Oct 25, 2019
The TV People!
When the Freeling family moved into their suburban California home, little did they know what they were getting themselves into! Minor oddities began showing themselves like chairs stacking in the kitchen lights flashing or even being pulled across the kitchen floor. It felt like a "tickle". The situation quickly grows more severe as a tree outside the children's room plunges inside and tries to ingest son, Robbie. Simultaneously, a gateway of sorts opens in the children's room eventually pulling the entire contents into its closet vortex including youngest daughter, Carol Anne.
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! đ
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! đ
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Tour-de-Force filmmaking
I have just viewed the film that WILL WIN the Oscars for Best Picture, Director and Cinematography (and probably many, many more).
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you donât have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you donât have to.
The current âleader in the clubhouseâ for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty â80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from Kingâs novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of filmâŚboring. It doesnât even have the ambition to be âso bad, itâs goodâ, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a âgameâ Zach Efron as âFirestarterâs Fatherâ and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as âFirestarterâs Momâ the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the restâŚâmehâ.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays âFirestarterâ, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is âjust fineâ, but she does not have the star power or âitâ factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I donât blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Govât agency that chases after various âspecialâ people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
AndâŚadding insult to injuryâŚthe "guy in the asbestos suitâ (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! Itâs like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesnât do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEYâS STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe weâve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and Iâm being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you donât have to.
The current âleader in the clubhouseâ for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty â80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from Kingâs novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of filmâŚboring. It doesnât even have the ambition to be âso bad, itâs goodâ, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a âgameâ Zach Efron as âFirestarterâs Fatherâ and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as âFirestarterâs Momâ the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the restâŚâmehâ.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays âFirestarterâ, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is âjust fineâ, but she does not have the star power or âitâ factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I donât blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Govât agency that chases after various âspecialâ people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
AndâŚadding insult to injuryâŚthe "guy in the asbestos suitâ (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! Itâs like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesnât do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEYâS STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe weâve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and Iâm being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film Iâve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. Thereâs a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but Iâm glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review Iâve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that âAt last, DC have produced a fun filmâ â so I wonât (even though itâs true!).
The Plot
âShazam!â harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanksâ illustrious career â Penny Marshallâs âBigâ from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where âZoltarâ mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in âShazam!â we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone âgoodâ to pass his magic onto. âGrab onto my staff with both handsâ (Ugh) and say my name â âJumanâŚ.ââŚ. no, sorry, wrong filmâŚ. âShazam!â. And as in âBigâ, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from âItâ).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard â not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I donât think itâs actually ever been explored before that âsuperheroesâ are actually âmagiciansâ with different coloured capes⌠itâs a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off â which before another twenty years are up they surely must? â will we see a âHarry Potter vs Supermanâ crossover? âYOUR MOTHERâS NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHAâŚ. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!â The mind boggles.
What does make âShazam!â interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (âonly a replicaâ) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Supermanâs body. So when Billy â in superhero form â makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes âShazamâ an âoh look, thereâs another oneâ curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazamâs ownâŚ.
Much fun is obviously had with âShazamâ testing out his powers. Freddieâs Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his âlaser sightâ; etc.
What works well.
Itâs a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of âRagnarokâ and âAnt Manâ without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of âRockyâ (obviously); the cracking windshield of âThe Lost Worldâ; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of âIndiana Jonesâ; the portal entry doors of âMonsters, Incâ. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the storyâs plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of âBigâ. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, heâs more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraserâs âGeorge of the Jungleâ rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (âLeaping buildings with a single boundâ â LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the âKingsmanâ films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the âsupervillainâ: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movieâs got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But itâs not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if itâs going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, âShazam!â overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many donât. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the âShazam!â to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didnât actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original âJumanjiâ and âGhostbustersâ. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of âmonkeysâ (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored âAquamanâ.
Final thoughts.
Itâs clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review Iâve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that âAt last, DC have produced a fun filmâ â so I wonât (even though itâs true!).
The Plot
âShazam!â harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanksâ illustrious career â Penny Marshallâs âBigâ from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where âZoltarâ mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in âShazam!â we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone âgoodâ to pass his magic onto. âGrab onto my staff with both handsâ (Ugh) and say my name â âJumanâŚ.ââŚ. no, sorry, wrong filmâŚ. âShazam!â. And as in âBigâ, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from âItâ).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard â not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I donât think itâs actually ever been explored before that âsuperheroesâ are actually âmagiciansâ with different coloured capes⌠itâs a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off â which before another twenty years are up they surely must? â will we see a âHarry Potter vs Supermanâ crossover? âYOUR MOTHERâS NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHAâŚ. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!â The mind boggles.
What does make âShazam!â interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (âonly a replicaâ) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Supermanâs body. So when Billy â in superhero form â makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes âShazamâ an âoh look, thereâs another oneâ curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazamâs ownâŚ.
Much fun is obviously had with âShazamâ testing out his powers. Freddieâs Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his âlaser sightâ; etc.
What works well.
Itâs a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of âRagnarokâ and âAnt Manâ without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of âRockyâ (obviously); the cracking windshield of âThe Lost Worldâ; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of âIndiana Jonesâ; the portal entry doors of âMonsters, Incâ. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the storyâs plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of âBigâ. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, heâs more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraserâs âGeorge of the Jungleâ rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (âLeaping buildings with a single boundâ â LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the âKingsmanâ films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the âsupervillainâ: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movieâs got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But itâs not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if itâs going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, âShazam!â overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many donât. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the âShazam!â to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didnât actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original âJumanjiâ and âGhostbustersâ. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of âmonkeysâ (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored âAquamanâ.
Final thoughts.
Itâs clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Almost Missed You in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Violet and Finn are one of those couples that everyone believes is meant to be. Their story is one entwined with fate. They met once by chance and were reunited years later. Now married, with a young son, everything seems great for the couple. While vacationing in Florida, Violet cannot believe her good fortune. So imagine her shock when she returns from a relaxing nap on the beach to find their hotel room empty: Finn has vanished, and he has taken Bear, their son, with him. Violet has no explanation for this, and the FBI is quickly involved. Meanwhile, Finn's closest friend, Caitlin--who has become Violet's dear friend too--becomes entwined in the disappearance when Finn enlists her help. Will Violet ever see her son again? And why exactly did Finn vanish from that beach?
This novel definitely sucks you in right away. It's confusing and intriguing, as you're completely puzzled as to why Finn would run off and leave his beloved wife (and why would he take their son, too). In the beginning, I did not want to stop reading: the novel was completely addictive. Strawser slowly adds in additional details that thicken the plot, making Caitlin and her husband, George, as much as a part of the story as Finn and Violet. It's told in alternating points of view (Violet, Caitlin, Finn) and time periods, including after the kidnapping incident and before, leading up to Violet and Finn's history together. This effectively builds suspense and can drive you a tad insane, as a chapter in the past ends, leaving you dangling and wanting more details.
The problem for me was that, over time, the characters almost seemed their own worst enemies. Rather than a mystery/suspense novel, the book turns more psychological (nothing necessarily wrong with that) with each character bemoaning their various choices that have led up to this point. And seriously, they've made some stupid choices. It's one of those things where you want to scream: if you'd all just have talked to each other! Communication! Some of the ways of handling things seem awfully impractical for such serious issues (case in point: just about anything Caitlin does with her life, including her way of addressing the kidnapping).
Still, the novel continues to churn out some crazy twists, making it very interesting. The unveiling of Finn's past really carries the book about 3/4 through. You're continually wondering what happened, what he owes various characters, and why on earth he'd want to leave Violet (and take Bear).
As much as I enjoyed this novel and how suspenseful it was, I was frustrated by the characters - none of whom I cared for much at all beyond Violet. (I would have just strangled Finn if possible and potentially even Caitlin.) Again, some communication could have really saved some preposterous plot movements. There are a few times where characters seem to act way out of line for their development, etc. As the book nears a close, it drags on with their in-fighting and psychological messes, versus actual excitement, which was a little disappointing. I felt like we'd been through a lot of excitement for nothing and come out at the end with little but an emotional saga. The ending is awfully pat, too, and makes you think, really?
However, I truly did enjoy most of this book and found it incredibly suspenseful. It's easy to read and draws you in immediately. Even if you don't like all the characters, you'll be intrigued by their predicaments and the entire scenario. I'd certainly be interested in what Strawser comes up with next. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 03/28/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
This novel definitely sucks you in right away. It's confusing and intriguing, as you're completely puzzled as to why Finn would run off and leave his beloved wife (and why would he take their son, too). In the beginning, I did not want to stop reading: the novel was completely addictive. Strawser slowly adds in additional details that thicken the plot, making Caitlin and her husband, George, as much as a part of the story as Finn and Violet. It's told in alternating points of view (Violet, Caitlin, Finn) and time periods, including after the kidnapping incident and before, leading up to Violet and Finn's history together. This effectively builds suspense and can drive you a tad insane, as a chapter in the past ends, leaving you dangling and wanting more details.
The problem for me was that, over time, the characters almost seemed their own worst enemies. Rather than a mystery/suspense novel, the book turns more psychological (nothing necessarily wrong with that) with each character bemoaning their various choices that have led up to this point. And seriously, they've made some stupid choices. It's one of those things where you want to scream: if you'd all just have talked to each other! Communication! Some of the ways of handling things seem awfully impractical for such serious issues (case in point: just about anything Caitlin does with her life, including her way of addressing the kidnapping).
Still, the novel continues to churn out some crazy twists, making it very interesting. The unveiling of Finn's past really carries the book about 3/4 through. You're continually wondering what happened, what he owes various characters, and why on earth he'd want to leave Violet (and take Bear).
As much as I enjoyed this novel and how suspenseful it was, I was frustrated by the characters - none of whom I cared for much at all beyond Violet. (I would have just strangled Finn if possible and potentially even Caitlin.) Again, some communication could have really saved some preposterous plot movements. There are a few times where characters seem to act way out of line for their development, etc. As the book nears a close, it drags on with their in-fighting and psychological messes, versus actual excitement, which was a little disappointing. I felt like we'd been through a lot of excitement for nothing and come out at the end with little but an emotional saga. The ending is awfully pat, too, and makes you think, really?
However, I truly did enjoy most of this book and found it incredibly suspenseful. It's easy to read and draws you in immediately. Even if you don't like all the characters, you'll be intrigued by their predicaments and the entire scenario. I'd certainly be interested in what Strawser comes up with next. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 03/28/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Guide To Second Date Sex (2020) in Movies
Feb 17, 2020
Talk about burying the lead. Marie Claire offered its readers the chance to see A Guide To Second Date Sex free online for Valentine's Day, after seeing the cute little into from the lead actors I knew I had to give it a try.
Laura and Ryan have a chance meeting in a club after their friends abandon them, their awkward meeting turns into flirty banter and the two agree to a second date.
Both fresh off break-ups and clueless about how to go about dating they turn to their friends for help, but do too many cooks spoil the broth?
What a film. It's so awkward, but you just can't look away. I envy you if there isn't a moment in this that you can identify with. [Mum, if you're reading this I am of course playing it up for effect, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, đŹ]
The keyword that kept popping up throughout my notes was "awkward", I truly hate awkward viewing. It's one of the reasons I don't like reality TV for the most part [when I do watch it I record it so I can fast forward through those bits]. I have actively walked out of the room because I couldn't cope watching things. How I managed to sit through this film I do not know. I was laughing out loud, I was burying my head in my hands, and yet I sat through it.
I can well and truly say at this point that I love George MacKay, put him in everything please. He plays Ryan, Ryan is somewhat unsuccessfully trying to get over his ex and his little experience with dating is being helped along by his flatmate Dan... but he's all for the conquest rather than the romance. Laura, played by Alexandra Roach has the backup of the internet, her mother and a friend, but she seems a little more sceptical about all the suggestions she's offered.
The setup gives you a very quick insight into our two main characters including some of the advice that's offered above. I've moaned in the past about short intros not setting up enough of the film that follows but with the way this film is laid out and the fact that the main action happens in the space of one evening means that everything unfolds very quickly and you don't need anything more.
When the present day story happens I really love the internal monologue that cuts in, the underlying insecurities and anxiety gets to bubble up. It absolutely needed it too, there's no way the film would have worked without this extra layer of humour. Without the audio the actors still do a great job, they mastered the art of the awkward silence, add the voiceover in and you get that chance to identify and match it to your own experience and internal commentary. I could write several stories in this vein based on my own experience. [Mum, again, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, đŹ]
The film is based on the director's play that was performed at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, I would love to have seen how that was done, I'm visualising something crossed between a play and Fleabag.
A Guide To Second Date Sex expresses those hideous memories that you really wish had been erased with the evening full of alcohol that accompanied them. It reflects so many girls' nights in and morning after phones calls I've been part of that it had that nostalgic feel which I think is how I stayed engaged despite my awkward reaction. It's an amusing and charming tale of dating that develops into a hilarious romp through young love and its perils.
This was an immensely entertaining watch but I really wish it ended one clip earlier than it did, and that's the only reason I'm not giving this 5 stars.
[Note to friends when you see it... Yes, that scene... I know, right?!]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/a-guide-to-second-date-sex-movie-review.html
Laura and Ryan have a chance meeting in a club after their friends abandon them, their awkward meeting turns into flirty banter and the two agree to a second date.
Both fresh off break-ups and clueless about how to go about dating they turn to their friends for help, but do too many cooks spoil the broth?
What a film. It's so awkward, but you just can't look away. I envy you if there isn't a moment in this that you can identify with. [Mum, if you're reading this I am of course playing it up for effect, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, đŹ]
The keyword that kept popping up throughout my notes was "awkward", I truly hate awkward viewing. It's one of the reasons I don't like reality TV for the most part [when I do watch it I record it so I can fast forward through those bits]. I have actively walked out of the room because I couldn't cope watching things. How I managed to sit through this film I do not know. I was laughing out loud, I was burying my head in my hands, and yet I sat through it.
I can well and truly say at this point that I love George MacKay, put him in everything please. He plays Ryan, Ryan is somewhat unsuccessfully trying to get over his ex and his little experience with dating is being helped along by his flatmate Dan... but he's all for the conquest rather than the romance. Laura, played by Alexandra Roach has the backup of the internet, her mother and a friend, but she seems a little more sceptical about all the suggestions she's offered.
The setup gives you a very quick insight into our two main characters including some of the advice that's offered above. I've moaned in the past about short intros not setting up enough of the film that follows but with the way this film is laid out and the fact that the main action happens in the space of one evening means that everything unfolds very quickly and you don't need anything more.
When the present day story happens I really love the internal monologue that cuts in, the underlying insecurities and anxiety gets to bubble up. It absolutely needed it too, there's no way the film would have worked without this extra layer of humour. Without the audio the actors still do a great job, they mastered the art of the awkward silence, add the voiceover in and you get that chance to identify and match it to your own experience and internal commentary. I could write several stories in this vein based on my own experience. [Mum, again, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, đŹ]
The film is based on the director's play that was performed at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, I would love to have seen how that was done, I'm visualising something crossed between a play and Fleabag.
A Guide To Second Date Sex expresses those hideous memories that you really wish had been erased with the evening full of alcohol that accompanied them. It reflects so many girls' nights in and morning after phones calls I've been part of that it had that nostalgic feel which I think is how I stayed engaged despite my awkward reaction. It's an amusing and charming tale of dating that develops into a hilarious romp through young love and its perils.
This was an immensely entertaining watch but I really wish it ended one clip earlier than it did, and that's the only reason I'm not giving this 5 stars.
[Note to friends when you see it... Yes, that scene... I know, right?!]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/a-guide-to-second-date-sex-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul WhitehouseâŚ. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, Iâm pleased to say no, itâs not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the âover the hill gangâ â the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely ÂŁ14 million â and could have been up to ÂŁ200 million â of goodies from a vault in Londonâs Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the âking of thievesâ â Brian (Michael Caine) â highly regarded as an âelder statesmanâ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermodeâs excellent âSecrets of Cinemaâ series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the âHeistâ movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad âuns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to âstep out of lineâ to do. âKing of Thievesâ nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but â for me â does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, itâs very much a âBrit-flickâ, and Iâm not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the filmâs script, penned by Joe Penhall (âThe Roadâ, âEnduring Loveâ), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast â the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67⌠and that includes the 35-year old Charlie âStardustâ Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by âThe Theory of Everythingâ director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from âThe Italian Jobâ â the superior 1969 version â then you were right!) As well as âThe Italian Jobâ, the snippets also includes âThe Lavender Hill Mobâ and (if Iâm not mistaken) the late George Sewell in âRobberyâ.
Itâs all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive â but in a good way â jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent âThe Children Actâ, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in âThe Italian Jobâ; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered âBilly the Fishâ. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the âPotterâ series; âPaddingtonâ and âBridget Jonesâ. While he has played borderline darker roles (âThe Lady in the Vanâ for example), he rarely goes full âSexy Beastâ evilâŚ. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film⌠just electrifying. Iâd love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, itâs a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, Iâm pleased to say no, itâs not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the âover the hill gangâ â the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely ÂŁ14 million â and could have been up to ÂŁ200 million â of goodies from a vault in Londonâs Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the âking of thievesâ â Brian (Michael Caine) â highly regarded as an âelder statesmanâ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermodeâs excellent âSecrets of Cinemaâ series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the âHeistâ movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad âuns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to âstep out of lineâ to do. âKing of Thievesâ nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but â for me â does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, itâs very much a âBrit-flickâ, and Iâm not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the filmâs script, penned by Joe Penhall (âThe Roadâ, âEnduring Loveâ), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast â the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67⌠and that includes the 35-year old Charlie âStardustâ Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by âThe Theory of Everythingâ director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from âThe Italian Jobâ â the superior 1969 version â then you were right!) As well as âThe Italian Jobâ, the snippets also includes âThe Lavender Hill Mobâ and (if Iâm not mistaken) the late George Sewell in âRobberyâ.
Itâs all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive â but in a good way â jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent âThe Children Actâ, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in âThe Italian Jobâ; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered âBilly the Fishâ. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the âPotterâ series; âPaddingtonâ and âBridget Jonesâ. While he has played borderline darker roles (âThe Lady in the Vanâ for example), he rarely goes full âSexy Beastâ evilâŚ. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film⌠just electrifying. Iâd love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, itâs a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
âSpielbergâ is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. Youâll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70âs: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywoodâs traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Warsâ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to âfather issuesâ in many of his films such as âE.T.â, âClose Encounters of the Third Kindâ, âHookâ and âIndiana Jones and the Last Crusadeâ.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but âJawsâ, âE.T.â, âSchindlerâs Listâ, âThe Color Purpleâ, âJurassic Parkâ, âMunichâ and âEmpire of the Sunâ get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of âbehind the cameraâ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (âToys!!â) in âClose Encountersâ to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in âE.T.â. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his âgo-toâ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to âeverymanâ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And thatâs my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isnâtâŚ. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, â1941â, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film âAlwaysâ. And there are only a few contributors â notably film critic Janet Maslin â who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielbergâs weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted âColor Purpleâ âmirror sceneâ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest â âReady Player Oneâ, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer â itâs a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70âs: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywoodâs traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Warsâ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to âfather issuesâ in many of his films such as âE.T.â, âClose Encounters of the Third Kindâ, âHookâ and âIndiana Jones and the Last Crusadeâ.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but âJawsâ, âE.T.â, âSchindlerâs Listâ, âThe Color Purpleâ, âJurassic Parkâ, âMunichâ and âEmpire of the Sunâ get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of âbehind the cameraâ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (âToys!!â) in âClose Encountersâ to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in âE.T.â. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his âgo-toâ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to âeverymanâ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And thatâs my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isnâtâŚ. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, â1941â, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film âAlwaysâ. And there are only a few contributors â notably film critic Janet Maslin â who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielbergâs weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted âColor Purpleâ âmirror sceneâ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest â âReady Player Oneâ, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer â itâs a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019
Young ensemble cast actually ensembling! (1 more)
Adam Driver on great form
After 42 years - does it leave with a bang or a whimper?
This review will be spoiler-free.
And so we come to the grand conclusion of George Lucas's nine-film vision, and someone can at last put the multi-limbed behemoth in a coffin and nail down the lid. It's certainly been a bumpy ride for this latest trilogy under Disney's stewardship, with rabidly negative fan-boys getting very hot under the collar about 'their baby' being despoiled by the evil empire!
We left the end of the last film with the Rebellion in tatters, reduced to a tiny fleet of ships. (It was truly fortunate that our key players were not on any of the lost ships wasn't it?) Rey (Daisy Ridley) is progressing her Jedi-training under the guidance of a new teacher. But the presence of Kylo-Ren (Adam Driver) is forever there, and their long-distance "psycho-chats" are becoming ever more 'substantial' as the bond between them grows.
But a dark presence from the past has returned, and both are drawn to it in different ways. A showdown between the forces of good and evil is inevitable.
The pace of the film is frenetic and totally exhausting. The first 30 minutes hardly pause for a breath as we zap around from location to location. Where the film really worked better for me was in the quieter and more reflective moments. Kylo Ren is in many of these moments: one, where he visits a very dark place, is well done; and one, where he receives a special visitor, is an interlude that is surprisingly effective. Adam Driver really is in excellent form here; he's never been my favourite actor in the world, but here truly impresses.
One of the problems of the first two films in the trilogy is that it sent all the young leads off in multiple different directions. The result was that there was very little of the interplay of the first films (between Han, Luke and Leia) that made them so memorable. Here that issue is rectified and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega) develop a close onscreen bond with much resultant banter. Ridley's Rey also gets thrown into the mix, with the result that a group hug feels at last normal and right. It's bizarre, but you suddenly realise what was missing here when - FOR THE FIRST TIME - two of the characters get introduced to each other!
A welcome inclusion is that of the late Carrie Fisher as Leia. It's actually extraordinary that they had enough unused footage to be able to weave in a full role for the character into the story. It never feels forced and there were only a few 'hugs' where I found myself thinking "I bet that's not her".
C3PO (Anthony Daniels) also gets much more screen time and has some really nice and comical scenes in here. And a new uni-wheeled robot (voiced by director J.J. Abrams) adds to both the comic potential (and the available Disney merchandise!).
One of the new characters on show is the physically impressive Naomi Ackie as the horse (or something!) riding Jannah. But she's given little to do in the plot.
Elsewhere, there are a whole bunch of famous faces cropping up. Watching the end credit roll is an "OH! That was who that was" revelation in some cases. I won't list them here, since it is delicious to go in blind and have the surprise of seeing them. But some are famous actors from screen and TV, and one is an Abrams' favourite from a past TV glory. The biggest cheer though was reserved for a certain X-wing fighter near the end of the film. A blink-and-you'll-miss-him moment, it was a white-haired appearance to treasure.
What the film does very well (or very badly if you read some reviews) is hark back to the glories of the earlier films, and particularly Episodes IV to VI. Many places are revisited or scenes re-enacted until the place is just SOGGY with nostalgia (to use an old Tom Lehrer line). Although greatly contrived, I enjoyed these scenes immensely.
Making maximum use of the opportunity, John Williams bashes out theme after theme from most of the nine films. The soundtrack really is a "John Williams Greatest Hits" collection. Williams also actually gets a cameo as well - apparently as an eye-patch wearing bar-tender in the Nepalese-like town, though I must admit I missed it. (I've seen comment online that this is his first on-screen appearance: actually not true... he was conducting the orchestra in the "bird-lady's concert hall" in "Home Alone 2").
There are also a huge number of similarities I saw in certain scenes with other cinematic releases outside of the Star Wars universe:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - in two particular scenes;
"Dunkirk" - but done properly!
"Dora and the Lost City of Gold" - it doesn't make any physics sense here either!
"Power Rangers" - just because of one of the characters - you'll know the one
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" - but to say more would be a spoiler!
And there are probably others I've forgotten!
One of my key issues with "The Last Jedi" was the way in which it invented mad-cap tasks, objects and people that had to be completed/found for the plot to be moved forwards. A massive and pointless diversion to a casino planet, for example, was made just to get into a secure area of an imperial vessel: something in this film they 'just do'!
This movie also suffers to a degree from the disease of 'McGuffinitis'. Where's the beacon? There's a dagger that must be found; Where's the interpreter?; etc. It's all very formulaic. But at least in this case, there is a certain logical flow that follows within the plot.
The LP soundtrack of "Star Wars" got me into a lifelong love of film music. One of the last tracks on the soundtrack of the first film was called "The Last Battle". Well, THAT wasn't true! There have been so many space battles since then that we've all lost count. But we all knew this would build to a doozy of a finale, and the film doesn't disappoint. There is utter mayhem in the skies: WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE HENCHMEN'S FAMILIES?
It all drives to a satisfying ending for me and feels like a good closure to the saga. Is it perfect? No, not at all. It really sets itself with too much to do, and then tries to do it all within the available running time. The film will - and has by looking at the volume of IMDB 1* ratings - upset a lot of the fan-boys. But, you know what? Stuff 'em! The film should be judged on how it makes YOU feel as a standalone piece of entertainment, rather than as a part of some sort of pseudo-religious cult. And I personally think Abrams did a pretty decent job here of trying to please most of the people most of the time.
(For the full graphical review, please visit One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019/ )
And so we come to the grand conclusion of George Lucas's nine-film vision, and someone can at last put the multi-limbed behemoth in a coffin and nail down the lid. It's certainly been a bumpy ride for this latest trilogy under Disney's stewardship, with rabidly negative fan-boys getting very hot under the collar about 'their baby' being despoiled by the evil empire!
We left the end of the last film with the Rebellion in tatters, reduced to a tiny fleet of ships. (It was truly fortunate that our key players were not on any of the lost ships wasn't it?) Rey (Daisy Ridley) is progressing her Jedi-training under the guidance of a new teacher. But the presence of Kylo-Ren (Adam Driver) is forever there, and their long-distance "psycho-chats" are becoming ever more 'substantial' as the bond between them grows.
But a dark presence from the past has returned, and both are drawn to it in different ways. A showdown between the forces of good and evil is inevitable.
The pace of the film is frenetic and totally exhausting. The first 30 minutes hardly pause for a breath as we zap around from location to location. Where the film really worked better for me was in the quieter and more reflective moments. Kylo Ren is in many of these moments: one, where he visits a very dark place, is well done; and one, where he receives a special visitor, is an interlude that is surprisingly effective. Adam Driver really is in excellent form here; he's never been my favourite actor in the world, but here truly impresses.
One of the problems of the first two films in the trilogy is that it sent all the young leads off in multiple different directions. The result was that there was very little of the interplay of the first films (between Han, Luke and Leia) that made them so memorable. Here that issue is rectified and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega) develop a close onscreen bond with much resultant banter. Ridley's Rey also gets thrown into the mix, with the result that a group hug feels at last normal and right. It's bizarre, but you suddenly realise what was missing here when - FOR THE FIRST TIME - two of the characters get introduced to each other!
A welcome inclusion is that of the late Carrie Fisher as Leia. It's actually extraordinary that they had enough unused footage to be able to weave in a full role for the character into the story. It never feels forced and there were only a few 'hugs' where I found myself thinking "I bet that's not her".
C3PO (Anthony Daniels) also gets much more screen time and has some really nice and comical scenes in here. And a new uni-wheeled robot (voiced by director J.J. Abrams) adds to both the comic potential (and the available Disney merchandise!).
One of the new characters on show is the physically impressive Naomi Ackie as the horse (or something!) riding Jannah. But she's given little to do in the plot.
Elsewhere, there are a whole bunch of famous faces cropping up. Watching the end credit roll is an "OH! That was who that was" revelation in some cases. I won't list them here, since it is delicious to go in blind and have the surprise of seeing them. But some are famous actors from screen and TV, and one is an Abrams' favourite from a past TV glory. The biggest cheer though was reserved for a certain X-wing fighter near the end of the film. A blink-and-you'll-miss-him moment, it was a white-haired appearance to treasure.
What the film does very well (or very badly if you read some reviews) is hark back to the glories of the earlier films, and particularly Episodes IV to VI. Many places are revisited or scenes re-enacted until the place is just SOGGY with nostalgia (to use an old Tom Lehrer line). Although greatly contrived, I enjoyed these scenes immensely.
Making maximum use of the opportunity, John Williams bashes out theme after theme from most of the nine films. The soundtrack really is a "John Williams Greatest Hits" collection. Williams also actually gets a cameo as well - apparently as an eye-patch wearing bar-tender in the Nepalese-like town, though I must admit I missed it. (I've seen comment online that this is his first on-screen appearance: actually not true... he was conducting the orchestra in the "bird-lady's concert hall" in "Home Alone 2").
There are also a huge number of similarities I saw in certain scenes with other cinematic releases outside of the Star Wars universe:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - in two particular scenes;
"Dunkirk" - but done properly!
"Dora and the Lost City of Gold" - it doesn't make any physics sense here either!
"Power Rangers" - just because of one of the characters - you'll know the one
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" - but to say more would be a spoiler!
And there are probably others I've forgotten!
One of my key issues with "The Last Jedi" was the way in which it invented mad-cap tasks, objects and people that had to be completed/found for the plot to be moved forwards. A massive and pointless diversion to a casino planet, for example, was made just to get into a secure area of an imperial vessel: something in this film they 'just do'!
This movie also suffers to a degree from the disease of 'McGuffinitis'. Where's the beacon? There's a dagger that must be found; Where's the interpreter?; etc. It's all very formulaic. But at least in this case, there is a certain logical flow that follows within the plot.
The LP soundtrack of "Star Wars" got me into a lifelong love of film music. One of the last tracks on the soundtrack of the first film was called "The Last Battle". Well, THAT wasn't true! There have been so many space battles since then that we've all lost count. But we all knew this would build to a doozy of a finale, and the film doesn't disappoint. There is utter mayhem in the skies: WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE HENCHMEN'S FAMILIES?
It all drives to a satisfying ending for me and feels like a good closure to the saga. Is it perfect? No, not at all. It really sets itself with too much to do, and then tries to do it all within the available running time. The film will - and has by looking at the volume of IMDB 1* ratings - upset a lot of the fan-boys. But, you know what? Stuff 'em! The film should be judged on how it makes YOU feel as a standalone piece of entertainment, rather than as a part of some sort of pseudo-religious cult. And I personally think Abrams did a pretty decent job here of trying to please most of the people most of the time.
(For the full graphical review, please visit One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019/ )
