Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021) in Movies
Feb 13, 2022
Good Performances, Thin Script
Jessica Chastain is, in my opinion - and with all apologies to Glenn Close - the best actress working today that has yet to win an Academy Award. Having been nominated twice previously (Supporting Actress for THE HELP in 2012 and Actress for ZERO DARKY THIRTY in 2013 - a performance I thought she was a shoo-in Oscar winner for, she would lose to Jennifer Lawrence for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK), Chastain has earned her 3rd Oscar nomination for portraying Tammy Faye Bakker in THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE. It would be absurdly bizarre if THIS was the role she would win for.
Telling the story of Tammy Faye Bakker, the heavily made-up spouse/partner to disgraced Televangelist Jim Bakker, THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE has, at it’s core, some TERRIFIC performances by Chastain, Andrew Garfield (Jim Bakker), Cherry Jones (Tammy Faye’s mother) and Vincent D’Onofrio (Jerry Falwell), it’s a shame that these performances couldn’t be performed with a better written and directed film.
Directed by Michael Showalter and Written by Fenton Bailey, Randy Barbato and Abe Sylvie (which might explain part of the issue), THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE just doesn’t go deep enough into the characters portrayed, but - instead - opts for the superficial, opting to paint each character in one dimension. There is the “not attached to the real world/idealistic” Tammy Faye. The “he seems nice on the surface, but there is something else going on underneath” Jim Bakker. The “evil/power hungry” Jerry Falwell and the “never approving” Mother.
All of these, on the surface, are the makings of a good film, unfortunately Showalter and the 3 writers never mine the depths of these characters showing other sides and/or connecting the characters to each other.
Which is a shame for the performances of all the main characters are terrific and would have been much more so had they had better material to work with. Chastain, rightfully, has been Oscar nominated for her turn. She won’t win, but she is deserving of the nomination and would have been a quite serious contender had she had better material.
Which, ultimately, makes this film fall flat. The ingredients were there, they just weren’t put together well enough to make a satisfying experience.
Letter Grade: B- (for the performances)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Telling the story of Tammy Faye Bakker, the heavily made-up spouse/partner to disgraced Televangelist Jim Bakker, THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE has, at it’s core, some TERRIFIC performances by Chastain, Andrew Garfield (Jim Bakker), Cherry Jones (Tammy Faye’s mother) and Vincent D’Onofrio (Jerry Falwell), it’s a shame that these performances couldn’t be performed with a better written and directed film.
Directed by Michael Showalter and Written by Fenton Bailey, Randy Barbato and Abe Sylvie (which might explain part of the issue), THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE just doesn’t go deep enough into the characters portrayed, but - instead - opts for the superficial, opting to paint each character in one dimension. There is the “not attached to the real world/idealistic” Tammy Faye. The “he seems nice on the surface, but there is something else going on underneath” Jim Bakker. The “evil/power hungry” Jerry Falwell and the “never approving” Mother.
All of these, on the surface, are the makings of a good film, unfortunately Showalter and the 3 writers never mine the depths of these characters showing other sides and/or connecting the characters to each other.
Which is a shame for the performances of all the main characters are terrific and would have been much more so had they had better material to work with. Chastain, rightfully, has been Oscar nominated for her turn. She won’t win, but she is deserving of the nomination and would have been a quite serious contender had she had better material.
Which, ultimately, makes this film fall flat. The ingredients were there, they just weren’t put together well enough to make a satisfying experience.
Letter Grade: B- (for the performances)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
Nov 13, 2020
2014 was a damn fine year for Marvel Studios in terms of quality, their two outputs being The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy. They're just a big double-whammy example of how comic book movies can get things right.
GOTG was a very niche property before hand. A bunch of little know Marvel characters galavanting around space, with revolving line ups involving inconsistent degrees of absurdity. The fact that batshit crazy characters such as Groot and Rocket Raccoon are now household names is an indication of just how effective this movie was.
James Gunn proves that he is the man for the job by melding together his own signature style (alongside his regular collaborator Michael Rooker of course) with the tried and tested Marvel formula of big action, and frequent humour. It's a toss up between this and Thor Ragnarok for funniest MCU movie for sure. Nearly every joke lands well, and unlike the sequel, the humour is never overdone. The balance is near perfect.
The cast are mainly to thank for that of course. Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, and the voice talents of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel make up the titular Guardians, and they are all unique and have intriguing back stories. They are well developed as the film plays out, and together make for an irreplaceable band of misfits.
The supporting cast include the aformentioned Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, John C. Reilly, Lee Pace, Glenn Close, Peter Serafinowicz, Sean Gunn, Djimon Hounsou, Benicio Del Toro, and a first appearance by Josh Brolin as Thanos... It's another undeniably impressive ensemble cast for the MCU.
The special effects on display here are incredible. The whole film looks amazing and the big set pieces are hugely entertaining, and emotionally charged...These characters make a quick impression!
The only real criticism I have is that Ronan the Accuser, this films main antagonist, feels a little wasted. He looks great, and Lee Pace does the best with what he's given, but by the time the credits roll, he unfortunately joins the big pile of disposable MCU villains.
It's a small gripe when compared to all the good in this movie - that includes it's fantastic soundtrack by the way.
Guardians of the Galaxy is wonderful. It's proof that studios no longer have to rely on the big A-list names to make a great film, and as a result, this opened the doors for even more weird and wonderful characters to make their way into this behemoth of a series. One of my personal favourite MCU entries.
GOTG was a very niche property before hand. A bunch of little know Marvel characters galavanting around space, with revolving line ups involving inconsistent degrees of absurdity. The fact that batshit crazy characters such as Groot and Rocket Raccoon are now household names is an indication of just how effective this movie was.
James Gunn proves that he is the man for the job by melding together his own signature style (alongside his regular collaborator Michael Rooker of course) with the tried and tested Marvel formula of big action, and frequent humour. It's a toss up between this and Thor Ragnarok for funniest MCU movie for sure. Nearly every joke lands well, and unlike the sequel, the humour is never overdone. The balance is near perfect.
The cast are mainly to thank for that of course. Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, and the voice talents of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel make up the titular Guardians, and they are all unique and have intriguing back stories. They are well developed as the film plays out, and together make for an irreplaceable band of misfits.
The supporting cast include the aformentioned Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, John C. Reilly, Lee Pace, Glenn Close, Peter Serafinowicz, Sean Gunn, Djimon Hounsou, Benicio Del Toro, and a first appearance by Josh Brolin as Thanos... It's another undeniably impressive ensemble cast for the MCU.
The special effects on display here are incredible. The whole film looks amazing and the big set pieces are hugely entertaining, and emotionally charged...These characters make a quick impression!
The only real criticism I have is that Ronan the Accuser, this films main antagonist, feels a little wasted. He looks great, and Lee Pace does the best with what he's given, but by the time the credits roll, he unfortunately joins the big pile of disposable MCU villains.
It's a small gripe when compared to all the good in this movie - that includes it's fantastic soundtrack by the way.
Guardians of the Galaxy is wonderful. It's proof that studios no longer have to rely on the big A-list names to make a great film, and as a result, this opened the doors for even more weird and wonderful characters to make their way into this behemoth of a series. One of my personal favourite MCU entries.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Greenland (2020) in Movies
Jul 1, 2021
It Doesn't Work
While surfing through my various streaming services looking for something to get swallowed up into my couch while watching, I encountered GREENLAND a film about a “planet killing” comet hurtling towards Earth starring that noted thespian Gerard Butler.
“Great”, I thought, “a disaster flick starring the guy from another cheesy disaster flick GEOSTORM, this should be fun, mindless entertainment”.
It wasn’t mindless and it wasn’t - most definitely - fun.
GREENLAND takes a “realistic” approach to the “what would happen if a killer comet starts barreling towards the Earth”. Because of this “realistic” approach, the mood throughout the film is pretty somber while the characters stand around and talk about the implications/consequences of this event.
There are 3 BIG issues with this film and it’s approach
1). The “realism” of what happens only occurs in service to the plot, when our heroes need to get from “Point A” to “Point B”, the freeways and roadways are, magically, empty - and a vehicle (completely full of gas) is conveniently awaiting them.
2). Gerard Butler is not even close enough of a good actor to carry the dialogue-heavy scenes.
3). Butler and his estranged wife (is there any other type of couple in these types of films) played by the “good enough” Morena Baccarin (DEADPOOL) are saddled with one of the most annoying, whiny kids (badly acted by Roger Dale Floyd) in the history of movies. At one point the child disappears from the plot (it would be a spoiler to explain why), I was really hoping that this character would not come back.
About the only thing that works in this film is a brief, extended cameo by Scott Glenn as Baccarin’s father, it lifts the middle of this sagging film at a time that it desperately needed it, giving me hope for the last 1/2 of the movie - a hope that was not realized.
I’m not sure I can lay all the blame of this failed film on Director Ric Roman Waugh (Angel Has Fallen), but he didn’t help himself here, either. He lingers way to long on events, dialogue and scenes, with the standard “light piano” underscore that emphasizes the importance of what is going on.
I blame the Producers of this film who, originally, had Neill Blomkamp (DISTRICT 9) lined up to Direct and Chris Evans to star in his first post-Avengers role. Both ended up dropping out and I can only imagine that the Producers cut the Director, Casting and Special Effects budgets, but kept the seriousness and realism of the tone.
It didn’t work.
Skip GREENLAND. If you want to check out “comets hitting the Earth” films, I would steer you towards the 1990’s duo of ARMAGEDDON and DEEP IMPACT.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
“Great”, I thought, “a disaster flick starring the guy from another cheesy disaster flick GEOSTORM, this should be fun, mindless entertainment”.
It wasn’t mindless and it wasn’t - most definitely - fun.
GREENLAND takes a “realistic” approach to the “what would happen if a killer comet starts barreling towards the Earth”. Because of this “realistic” approach, the mood throughout the film is pretty somber while the characters stand around and talk about the implications/consequences of this event.
There are 3 BIG issues with this film and it’s approach
1). The “realism” of what happens only occurs in service to the plot, when our heroes need to get from “Point A” to “Point B”, the freeways and roadways are, magically, empty - and a vehicle (completely full of gas) is conveniently awaiting them.
2). Gerard Butler is not even close enough of a good actor to carry the dialogue-heavy scenes.
3). Butler and his estranged wife (is there any other type of couple in these types of films) played by the “good enough” Morena Baccarin (DEADPOOL) are saddled with one of the most annoying, whiny kids (badly acted by Roger Dale Floyd) in the history of movies. At one point the child disappears from the plot (it would be a spoiler to explain why), I was really hoping that this character would not come back.
About the only thing that works in this film is a brief, extended cameo by Scott Glenn as Baccarin’s father, it lifts the middle of this sagging film at a time that it desperately needed it, giving me hope for the last 1/2 of the movie - a hope that was not realized.
I’m not sure I can lay all the blame of this failed film on Director Ric Roman Waugh (Angel Has Fallen), but he didn’t help himself here, either. He lingers way to long on events, dialogue and scenes, with the standard “light piano” underscore that emphasizes the importance of what is going on.
I blame the Producers of this film who, originally, had Neill Blomkamp (DISTRICT 9) lined up to Direct and Chris Evans to star in his first post-Avengers role. Both ended up dropping out and I can only imagine that the Producers cut the Director, Casting and Special Effects budgets, but kept the seriousness and realism of the tone.
It didn’t work.
Skip GREENLAND. If you want to check out “comets hitting the Earth” films, I would steer you towards the 1990’s duo of ARMAGEDDON and DEEP IMPACT.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 13, 2021
Fights to find the right tone - but succeeds more than it fails
The new Disney live action film CRUELLA (telling the origin story of one of the most well known villains in Disney animation history) is one of those strange films that is trying to walk a thin line between “G” rated “kid” entertainment and an “R” rated film intended for a more “mature” audience.
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Social Media involvement in political manipulation? Don’t be ridiculous!
Set in the near future “The Circle” tells a horror story of the social media age involving an omnipotent American corporate, pitched somewhere between being Facebook-like and Google-like (note, lawyers, I just said “like”!) Emma Watson (“Beauty and the Beast“) plays young intern Mae who, partly through the aid of family friend Annie (Karen Gillan, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Doctor Who”) but mostly through her own aptitude, lands a foothold job in customer services for the company. With the lush corporate campus fast becoming home, Mae is quickly singled out as having “executive potential” by the charismatic CEO Bailey (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“) and his more taciturn sidekick Stenton (US comedian Patton Oswalt).
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Respect (2021) in Movies
Oct 14, 2021
Re, re, re, re, ‘spect… Just a little bit.
What with holidays and Bond, it’s taken me a few weeks to get to see this Aretha Franklin biopic. But I finally caught it this week.
Plot Summary:
‘Re’ is a 10-year old growing up in relative middle-class affluence in Birmingham, Alabama with her high-profile preacher father C.L. Franklin (Forest Whitaker). She is blessed with a wonderful singing voice. We follow her career, as Aretha Franklin (Jennifer Hudson), through her struggles with controlling men and alcohol. This is against the backdrop of supporting the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King (Gilbert Glenn Brown).
“Respect” Review: Positives:
Jennifer Hudson gives a tremendous performance as Franklin, delivering both the vocals and the acting admirably. (Apparently, the lady herself, before she died in August 2018, named Hudson as the best person to play her.)
Coming out of this movie, you have to admire Aretha Franklin’s legacy. Although there are moments when her ‘demons’ got the better of her (and the movie is unafraid to paint her in a negative light for these) she led a tumultuous life and yet was still a strong force for both feminism and equality. I think the movie highlights that admirably. “Have you lost your mind?” her father (Forest Whitaker) asks. “Maybe…. maybe I’ve found it.” she replies.
I loved the clip during the end titles (at a Carole King concert and in front of the Obamas) of Franklin well into her 70’s belting out “Natural Woman”. Classy stuff.
Negatives:
It’s long. Very long. Approaching Bond long.
There’s a curious ‘cookie-cutter-ness’ to these biopics of classic female singers (controlling and abusive men; alcohol/drug abuse; prejudice through sex/race; etc). (Would they even have emanated the same level of soul without all the grief? Perhaps not.) The similarities lead you to naturally compare this movie with “The US vs Billie Holiday“. The Billie Holiday story felt like it had a lot more grit and angst in it, making it, for me at least, more memorable. The script for “Respect” – although still rather episodic – flows better. Whilst still great, Hudson’s performance (an Oscar nomination perhaps?) doesn’t come close to the Oscar-nominated stellar job done by Andra Day.
I didn’t like how the script introduced us to its characters. For example, Ted White (Marlon Wayans) is introduced at a church barbeque. He’s painted as a disreputable character, but why? And you have no idea if he is supposed to be a famous singer, a songwriter, a promoter, or a producer (as in fact he is). As another example, Kelvin Hair plays Sam Cooke in the movie, but – unless I missed it – this doesn’t seem to be highlighted in the script.
Summary Thoughts on “Respect”
“Respect” is the feature debut for female director Liesl Tommy. And it’s certainly an ambitious target for a first-timer to shoot at, so ‘Respect’ for that! And it comes across as a solid and enjoyable biopic, not least to remind yourself of some of the classic tunes that Aretha Franklin belted out. At 145 minutes though, it takes its time telling its story, and I think a tighter, shorter film would have worked better.
Did I enjoy it though? Yes, I did. But it’s worth pointing out that the illustrious Mrs Movie Man – who normally begrudges every minute over 90 minutes in a movie – really loved this one.
Plot Summary:
‘Re’ is a 10-year old growing up in relative middle-class affluence in Birmingham, Alabama with her high-profile preacher father C.L. Franklin (Forest Whitaker). She is blessed with a wonderful singing voice. We follow her career, as Aretha Franklin (Jennifer Hudson), through her struggles with controlling men and alcohol. This is against the backdrop of supporting the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King (Gilbert Glenn Brown).
“Respect” Review: Positives:
Jennifer Hudson gives a tremendous performance as Franklin, delivering both the vocals and the acting admirably. (Apparently, the lady herself, before she died in August 2018, named Hudson as the best person to play her.)
Coming out of this movie, you have to admire Aretha Franklin’s legacy. Although there are moments when her ‘demons’ got the better of her (and the movie is unafraid to paint her in a negative light for these) she led a tumultuous life and yet was still a strong force for both feminism and equality. I think the movie highlights that admirably. “Have you lost your mind?” her father (Forest Whitaker) asks. “Maybe…. maybe I’ve found it.” she replies.
I loved the clip during the end titles (at a Carole King concert and in front of the Obamas) of Franklin well into her 70’s belting out “Natural Woman”. Classy stuff.
Negatives:
It’s long. Very long. Approaching Bond long.
There’s a curious ‘cookie-cutter-ness’ to these biopics of classic female singers (controlling and abusive men; alcohol/drug abuse; prejudice through sex/race; etc). (Would they even have emanated the same level of soul without all the grief? Perhaps not.) The similarities lead you to naturally compare this movie with “The US vs Billie Holiday“. The Billie Holiday story felt like it had a lot more grit and angst in it, making it, for me at least, more memorable. The script for “Respect” – although still rather episodic – flows better. Whilst still great, Hudson’s performance (an Oscar nomination perhaps?) doesn’t come close to the Oscar-nominated stellar job done by Andra Day.
I didn’t like how the script introduced us to its characters. For example, Ted White (Marlon Wayans) is introduced at a church barbeque. He’s painted as a disreputable character, but why? And you have no idea if he is supposed to be a famous singer, a songwriter, a promoter, or a producer (as in fact he is). As another example, Kelvin Hair plays Sam Cooke in the movie, but – unless I missed it – this doesn’t seem to be highlighted in the script.
Summary Thoughts on “Respect”
“Respect” is the feature debut for female director Liesl Tommy. And it’s certainly an ambitious target for a first-timer to shoot at, so ‘Respect’ for that! And it comes across as a solid and enjoyable biopic, not least to remind yourself of some of the classic tunes that Aretha Franklin belted out. At 145 minutes though, it takes its time telling its story, and I think a tighter, shorter film would have worked better.
Did I enjoy it though? Yes, I did. But it’s worth pointing out that the illustrious Mrs Movie Man – who normally begrudges every minute over 90 minutes in a movie – really loved this one.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Wow. Just wow. It feels like there are no words that could describe how great Guardians of the Galaxy is. This is the first movie in a while where I walked in with high expectations, and yet they still managed to exceed them. OK. Enough gushing. Time to get to the dirt.
Guardians, while a movie about a group of people, follows Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) as he loses his mother and then is suddenly whisked away (kidnapped) by an (at first) unknown space ship. Then we fast forward 26 years later and we see what the young kid who couldn’t handle the death of his mother has become. A quick-witted, sort of goofy, outlaw who likes to refer to himself as Star Lord. He double crosses the same people who have helped raise him to be the man he has become, and so sets off a series of events that brings Star Lord, Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel), Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Drax (Dave Bautista) together to go an insane adventure in an attempt to save the galaxy. In order to do this, they must stop Ronan, a Lieutenant in Thanos’ army, from obtaining a mysterious orb. The gang comes together through unlikely circumstances, and ultimately work very well together as a team, but do they have what it takes to get the job done?
This movie is all around genius. While I did have high expectations for the film, I was a little reticent about James Gunn directing. He has not had anything on this scale in the past, but man did he knock it out of the park. Every element of this world was working together perfectly… the soundtrack and score helped set the quirky, adventurous tone of the film. The cinematography combined with the visual effects was captivating. The acting was superb, with the standout being Dave Bautista as Drax. Who knew he had it in him? Apparently James Gunn did. But every actor played their part as if it were meant for them specifically. If I have one gripe in the department, it’s that Nebula (Karen Gillan) did not have as much screen time as she should have. You also some surprise supporting cast in their too with the likes of Michael Rooker, Djimon Hounsou, Glenn Close and Benicio Del Toro, the movie is definitely Gunn-ing for gold. (I am so sorry. That was cheesy I know).
We saw this movie in 3D. I am not a big fan of “everything has to be 3D”, and typically space-based movies tend to overdo the 3D effects. However, I think that the 3D in this movie was slightly understated, which is a definite good thing. Sure, there were scenes that you could tell were made specifically because it would be shown in 3D, but they didn’t make you sick of the effect 5 seconds into the scene. It was very artfully done, and not too overwhelming for a space film.
This is definitely the film to see this summer. Great action, good story arch, great setup for the next movie, and a multitude of tie-ins to the other Marvel universe films. I am definitely going to be seeing this in theaters again, especially since we did not get the bonus scene at the press screening, and it will be a definite buy on Blu-Ray. Even in 3D.
I also wanted to address the rumor of Nathan Fillion being in this film. No, he is not Nova. However, he is in the film. But blink… and you will miss it. I am curious to see if anyone else can find him in the film. Please let us know in the comments!
Guardians, while a movie about a group of people, follows Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) as he loses his mother and then is suddenly whisked away (kidnapped) by an (at first) unknown space ship. Then we fast forward 26 years later and we see what the young kid who couldn’t handle the death of his mother has become. A quick-witted, sort of goofy, outlaw who likes to refer to himself as Star Lord. He double crosses the same people who have helped raise him to be the man he has become, and so sets off a series of events that brings Star Lord, Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel), Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Drax (Dave Bautista) together to go an insane adventure in an attempt to save the galaxy. In order to do this, they must stop Ronan, a Lieutenant in Thanos’ army, from obtaining a mysterious orb. The gang comes together through unlikely circumstances, and ultimately work very well together as a team, but do they have what it takes to get the job done?
This movie is all around genius. While I did have high expectations for the film, I was a little reticent about James Gunn directing. He has not had anything on this scale in the past, but man did he knock it out of the park. Every element of this world was working together perfectly… the soundtrack and score helped set the quirky, adventurous tone of the film. The cinematography combined with the visual effects was captivating. The acting was superb, with the standout being Dave Bautista as Drax. Who knew he had it in him? Apparently James Gunn did. But every actor played their part as if it were meant for them specifically. If I have one gripe in the department, it’s that Nebula (Karen Gillan) did not have as much screen time as she should have. You also some surprise supporting cast in their too with the likes of Michael Rooker, Djimon Hounsou, Glenn Close and Benicio Del Toro, the movie is definitely Gunn-ing for gold. (I am so sorry. That was cheesy I know).
We saw this movie in 3D. I am not a big fan of “everything has to be 3D”, and typically space-based movies tend to overdo the 3D effects. However, I think that the 3D in this movie was slightly understated, which is a definite good thing. Sure, there were scenes that you could tell were made specifically because it would be shown in 3D, but they didn’t make you sick of the effect 5 seconds into the scene. It was very artfully done, and not too overwhelming for a space film.
This is definitely the film to see this summer. Great action, good story arch, great setup for the next movie, and a multitude of tie-ins to the other Marvel universe films. I am definitely going to be seeing this in theaters again, especially since we did not get the bonus scene at the press screening, and it will be a definite buy on Blu-Ray. Even in 3D.
I also wanted to address the rumor of Nathan Fillion being in this film. No, he is not Nova. However, he is in the film. But blink… and you will miss it. I am curious to see if anyone else can find him in the film. Please let us know in the comments!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Father Figures (2018) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Expectations, all of us have them and occasionally our expectations live up to exactly as we assume they will; other times, we are wrong. The movie Father Figures, a comedy film directed by Lawrence Sher and written by Justin Malen is not only about two brothers searching for their biological father, but the journey and the expectations that go along with the journey.
Peter Reynolds (Ed Helms) is a man who is disenchanted with his life. He’s a doctor who’s still struggling with his divorce from three years ago, and the prospects of connecting with a son who wants nothing to do with him. His fraternal twin brother Kyle, on the other hand, has the picture-perfect life. Wealthy for being nothing more than a surf bum on the beach and being at the right place at the right time; with a new baby on the way with his long-term (6 month) relationship.
An unlikely event opens Peter’s eyes to the life he has known; a life where the father he believed to be his died of colon cancer, which dictated his career and life choices. The event exposed the lies that their mother had told them and the man they believed to be their father all along, never was.
The realization sends the two brothers on a mission to discover who their real father is, and also discover a bit about themselves along the way. Their journey of discovery will take them from Florida to Massachusetts, and several places in-between. All of this, with of hopes of unraveling the mystery of who their real father is and what role, if any, he could fill in their existing lives.
Ed Helms, portrays his character brilliantly. A man who is kind, good-hearted and responsible. The one who even with all his good intentions, never feels like he is able to get ahead. Owen Wilson plays what I feel is one of his best roles to date, as the ying to Ed Helms yang, the happy-go-lucky, never have a care in the world character. The two have a chemistry on the screen that draws you into their personal struggles with lots of laughter along the way.
The cast of “fathers”, are all brilliantly portrayed, whether it’s Terry Bradshaw portraying himself; J. K. Simons, as the lovable “jerk”; and the always talented Christopher Walken as the family veterinarian Dr. Walter Tinkler. Glenn Close does an absolutely amazing performance as the brother’s mother Helen Baxter.
There are plenty of laughs to be had through the movie, but it’s the amount of heart that the movie shows that really drew me in. As I spoke in the beginning, about expectations, I myself had expectations that the movie would be just another slap-stick comedy, with the characters getting into one hilarious situation after another. While this certainly did happen (it is still a comedy after-all), none of the bits seemed outrageous or done for the sake of shock value. As with most movies that fall into this genre, there are scenes which some may feel provided nothing to the story, and were there simply for adolescent humor or to justify the R rating, but none of these detracted from the film as a whole. I didn’t expect to come out of this movie not only quoting some of the very memorable lines, but also reflecting on where their journey began and where it ended.
Father Figures is much more than a simple comedy, and it’s far more than simply a “who’s your daddy” adventure. It’s a movie about self-discovery and more importantly, the journey to get you there. The folks at Warner Bros. Pictures should be commended on not only the casting of the roles, but for producing a story they can be proud of.
Peter Reynolds (Ed Helms) is a man who is disenchanted with his life. He’s a doctor who’s still struggling with his divorce from three years ago, and the prospects of connecting with a son who wants nothing to do with him. His fraternal twin brother Kyle, on the other hand, has the picture-perfect life. Wealthy for being nothing more than a surf bum on the beach and being at the right place at the right time; with a new baby on the way with his long-term (6 month) relationship.
An unlikely event opens Peter’s eyes to the life he has known; a life where the father he believed to be his died of colon cancer, which dictated his career and life choices. The event exposed the lies that their mother had told them and the man they believed to be their father all along, never was.
The realization sends the two brothers on a mission to discover who their real father is, and also discover a bit about themselves along the way. Their journey of discovery will take them from Florida to Massachusetts, and several places in-between. All of this, with of hopes of unraveling the mystery of who their real father is and what role, if any, he could fill in their existing lives.
Ed Helms, portrays his character brilliantly. A man who is kind, good-hearted and responsible. The one who even with all his good intentions, never feels like he is able to get ahead. Owen Wilson plays what I feel is one of his best roles to date, as the ying to Ed Helms yang, the happy-go-lucky, never have a care in the world character. The two have a chemistry on the screen that draws you into their personal struggles with lots of laughter along the way.
The cast of “fathers”, are all brilliantly portrayed, whether it’s Terry Bradshaw portraying himself; J. K. Simons, as the lovable “jerk”; and the always talented Christopher Walken as the family veterinarian Dr. Walter Tinkler. Glenn Close does an absolutely amazing performance as the brother’s mother Helen Baxter.
There are plenty of laughs to be had through the movie, but it’s the amount of heart that the movie shows that really drew me in. As I spoke in the beginning, about expectations, I myself had expectations that the movie would be just another slap-stick comedy, with the characters getting into one hilarious situation after another. While this certainly did happen (it is still a comedy after-all), none of the bits seemed outrageous or done for the sake of shock value. As with most movies that fall into this genre, there are scenes which some may feel provided nothing to the story, and were there simply for adolescent humor or to justify the R rating, but none of these detracted from the film as a whole. I didn’t expect to come out of this movie not only quoting some of the very memorable lines, but also reflecting on where their journey began and where it ended.
Father Figures is much more than a simple comedy, and it’s far more than simply a “who’s your daddy” adventure. It’s a movie about self-discovery and more importantly, the journey to get you there. The folks at Warner Bros. Pictures should be commended on not only the casting of the roles, but for producing a story they can be proud of.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Suburbicon (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Suburbicon is a picturesque community built to free families from all the hustle and bustle of the big city but with all the amenities a community will need. For all intents in purposes Suburbicon is the ideal place to raise a family in the 1950s. That is exactly what the Lodge family is doing. That is until the night Nicky (Noah Jupe) is awoken by his father, Gardner (Matt Damon), and told that there are two men in the house. The two criminals, Sloan and Louis (Glenn Fleshler and Alex Hassell), move the family to the kitchen and tie Nicky, Gardner, Nicky’s mother Rose (Julianne Moore) and Rose’s sister Margaret (also Julianne Moore) to chairs and put them to sleep using chloroform. When Nicky awakens in the hospital his father and aunt are waiting for him but sadly his mother was overdosed with chloroform and died. After the funeral it is decided by Gardner that Aunt Margaret should come stay with them. When officer Hightower (Jack Conley) calls to let them know they have found two possible suspects Gardner rushes to the police station to look at a lineup. Gardner arrives and is surprised to find Margaret and Nicky there. He asks that Nicky be left outside to save him from the trauma. After a line of potential criminals are paraded in front of Gardner and Margaret both agree that the perpetrators are not there. When they turn around they are surprised to see Nicky with a shocked look on his face as he is staring directly at Sloan and Louis. Nicky now knows that something is going on with his mother’s death and he may be trapped in a house with the two people who are responsible. He is not the only one that thinks something is amiss an insurance investigator, Bud Cooper (Oscar Isaac), shows up with questions about the policy. Is the Suburbicon truly the sanctuary that it looks like from the outside or is there something sinister happening behind closed doors?
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.