Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Charade (1963) in Movies
Feb 27, 2018 (Updated Feb 27, 2018)
Effervescent Hitchcock pastiche. Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant spar and fall in love while attempting to discover the whereabouts of a stolen fortune; James Coburn and George Kennedy are amongst the killers also taking an interest in the cash.
Film's main plus points are its ingeniously convoluted script, practically guaranteed to keep the viewer guessing, and sparkling dialogue, which Grant and Hepburn put across every bit as well as you would expect. Film also has a touch of grit in the thriller elements, as well. A highly polished piece of escapist entertainment; classy in every department. Almost certainly showing on a video-sharing website near you (Universal mucked up the copyright notice and the film has been in the public domain ever since it was first released).
Film's main plus points are its ingeniously convoluted script, practically guaranteed to keep the viewer guessing, and sparkling dialogue, which Grant and Hepburn put across every bit as well as you would expect. Film also has a touch of grit in the thriller elements, as well. A highly polished piece of escapist entertainment; classy in every department. Almost certainly showing on a video-sharing website near you (Universal mucked up the copyright notice and the film has been in the public domain ever since it was first released).
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated George and Lizzie in Books
Oct 29, 2020
This is the seventh book in my #atozchallenge! I'm challenging myself to read a book from my shelves that starts with each letter of the alphabet.
In high school, Lizzie made a choice--one she soon regrets--participating in something called the Great Game. The event alters the course of her life forever, along with a passionate relationship that ends in college. These moments, plus the influence of Lizzie's psychologist parents, who offer her little support as a kid, turn her into a melancholy and unfulfilled adult. Her husband, George, however, comes from a happy childhood with loving parents. He adores his family and they him. He also worships Lizzie, giving the two an unbalanced marriage. Can George and Lizzie survive an union on such unequal ground?
I'll confess that this book was not what I was expecting--I thought it was going to be a cheerful love story and a pick-me-up. It is a love story, though, all the same. George loves Lizzie. Lizzie, though, is lost in a love from the past. I'm not going to lie: Lizzie is a very frustrating character and a hard one for whom to care. She doesn't appreciate George, nor, really, much of her life. Now, she was truly saddled with terrible parents, so you have to grant her that. Her fixation on her past relationship makes you want to shake her, though.
"And because for years and years the voices in her head never let Lizzie forget that the Great Game had been a stupid idea right from the beginning and that she'd been an idiot for participating in it, her past was always there, a living thing. It shaped her present and future."
And of, of course, there is the Great Game--the event from high school which alters Lizzie's future. We can understand why Lizzie is Lizzie, but we can't always forgive her for her Lizzie type ways. Also, please note, there are a lot of football references in this book. A lot. I like football, but I'm not sure everyone who picks up a book like this will feel the same.
The story of George and Lizzie is told in very short vignettes (each with a title) that slowly move forward in time and alternate with Lizzie's past, mainly focusing on the Great Game, which so defined her life. This format takes much getting used to. There is no linear story here, but tiny bits and pieces of narrative from George and Lizzie. I almost abandoned the book when I first started--I couldn't get in the groove (and honestly, it's depressing). When I reluctantly returned to it a few days later, more prepared for the format, I could read it more easily.
In the end, I can't say I enjoyed this story. If I rated it purely on "like" factor, it would probably be a two-star read. Incorporating in Lizzie's life experiences and how a few things slowly grew on me, I'm giving this three stars, but only barely. (Also, I have real issues with how many kids from Lizzie's high school football team went on to the NFL. Maybe it's possible, but it seems insane.) 3 stars, but only eked out when they brought the chains out on the field to measure (too much?).
In high school, Lizzie made a choice--one she soon regrets--participating in something called the Great Game. The event alters the course of her life forever, along with a passionate relationship that ends in college. These moments, plus the influence of Lizzie's psychologist parents, who offer her little support as a kid, turn her into a melancholy and unfulfilled adult. Her husband, George, however, comes from a happy childhood with loving parents. He adores his family and they him. He also worships Lizzie, giving the two an unbalanced marriage. Can George and Lizzie survive an union on such unequal ground?
I'll confess that this book was not what I was expecting--I thought it was going to be a cheerful love story and a pick-me-up. It is a love story, though, all the same. George loves Lizzie. Lizzie, though, is lost in a love from the past. I'm not going to lie: Lizzie is a very frustrating character and a hard one for whom to care. She doesn't appreciate George, nor, really, much of her life. Now, she was truly saddled with terrible parents, so you have to grant her that. Her fixation on her past relationship makes you want to shake her, though.
"And because for years and years the voices in her head never let Lizzie forget that the Great Game had been a stupid idea right from the beginning and that she'd been an idiot for participating in it, her past was always there, a living thing. It shaped her present and future."
And of, of course, there is the Great Game--the event from high school which alters Lizzie's future. We can understand why Lizzie is Lizzie, but we can't always forgive her for her Lizzie type ways. Also, please note, there are a lot of football references in this book. A lot. I like football, but I'm not sure everyone who picks up a book like this will feel the same.
The story of George and Lizzie is told in very short vignettes (each with a title) that slowly move forward in time and alternate with Lizzie's past, mainly focusing on the Great Game, which so defined her life. This format takes much getting used to. There is no linear story here, but tiny bits and pieces of narrative from George and Lizzie. I almost abandoned the book when I first started--I couldn't get in the groove (and honestly, it's depressing). When I reluctantly returned to it a few days later, more prepared for the format, I could read it more easily.
In the end, I can't say I enjoyed this story. If I rated it purely on "like" factor, it would probably be a two-star read. Incorporating in Lizzie's life experiences and how a few things slowly grew on me, I'm giving this three stars, but only barely. (Also, I have real issues with how many kids from Lizzie's high school football team went on to the NFL. Maybe it's possible, but it seems insane.) 3 stars, but only eked out when they brought the chains out on the field to measure (too much?).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Charade (1963) in Movies
Nov 15, 2020
The best Hitchcock film NOT Directed by Hitchcock
What do you get when you cross Cary Grant (NORTH BY NORTHWEST) with Audrey Hepburn (BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S) and a cavalcade of interesting faces like Walter Matthau (GOODBYE CHARLIE), James Coburn (THE GREAT ESCAPE), George Kennedy (IN HARM'S WAY) and Ned Glass (WEST SIDE STORY), put them in an exotic European location (this time, mostly, Paris) and have all of them chasing each other for a missing $250,000?
You have the best Alfred Hitchock film NOT Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
Based on a story by Peter Stone, and Directed by Stanley Donen (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN), CHARADE is a throwback film, that shows the scramble for power and wealth in the beginnings of the cold war in Europe as a woman (Hepburn) searches for answers after her husband shows up deceased and she is instantly besieged by a bevy of mugs looking for some missing loot.
It's a fun and interesting whoddunnit and "whereisit"? With a central plot/love story hinging on the relationship between the Grant and Hepburn characters. And...this is where Charade succeeds greatly as the chemistry between the two is strong, thanks to the smart, forward-thinking idea of having Hepburn as on top of her game as Grant is of his. She is no "damsel in distress", but rather a worthy sparring partner for Grants (and the other mugs).
Of course, it doesn't hurt that Hepburn is dressed - impeccably - by Edith Head in stunning Givenchy outfits all set to the music of Henry Mancini.
Speaking of mugs, they don't get more character-y to look at than Matthau, Coburn, Kennedy and Glass and they all are terrific in their roles as shadowy, sinister figures who are after something that they think Hepburn has...but she just might not have it.
Beautifully shot by Donen in Paris of the early 1960's, this film captures a bygone era and a real feeling of a romanticized and glamorous Europe. This is interesting characters doing interesting things in an interesting way in an interesting place.
And...I'm glad all of this is interesting, for if you stopped for a moment to think about the plot - or the rather languid pace of this film - then Charade would lose quite a bit of it's luster and appeal.
But, fortunately for me, I didn't do that. I sat and immersed myself in these characters, settings and circumstances and was rewarded with a very entertaining evening brought to the screen by master players who know what they are doing.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
You have the best Alfred Hitchock film NOT Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
Based on a story by Peter Stone, and Directed by Stanley Donen (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN), CHARADE is a throwback film, that shows the scramble for power and wealth in the beginnings of the cold war in Europe as a woman (Hepburn) searches for answers after her husband shows up deceased and she is instantly besieged by a bevy of mugs looking for some missing loot.
It's a fun and interesting whoddunnit and "whereisit"? With a central plot/love story hinging on the relationship between the Grant and Hepburn characters. And...this is where Charade succeeds greatly as the chemistry between the two is strong, thanks to the smart, forward-thinking idea of having Hepburn as on top of her game as Grant is of his. She is no "damsel in distress", but rather a worthy sparring partner for Grants (and the other mugs).
Of course, it doesn't hurt that Hepburn is dressed - impeccably - by Edith Head in stunning Givenchy outfits all set to the music of Henry Mancini.
Speaking of mugs, they don't get more character-y to look at than Matthau, Coburn, Kennedy and Glass and they all are terrific in their roles as shadowy, sinister figures who are after something that they think Hepburn has...but she just might not have it.
Beautifully shot by Donen in Paris of the early 1960's, this film captures a bygone era and a real feeling of a romanticized and glamorous Europe. This is interesting characters doing interesting things in an interesting way in an interesting place.
And...I'm glad all of this is interesting, for if you stopped for a moment to think about the plot - or the rather languid pace of this film - then Charade would lose quite a bit of it's luster and appeal.
But, fortunately for me, I didn't do that. I sat and immersed myself in these characters, settings and circumstances and was rewarded with a very entertaining evening brought to the screen by master players who know what they are doing.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Sylvia Scarlett (1935) in Movies
Jan 4, 2019
Surprised it Wasn't Better
I was hoping my first review of 2019 would be for a quality film, but you can’t win ‘em all. Sylvia Scarlett is awful and that is putting it nicely. The plot: a young woman pretends to be a boy to travel with her con artist father and trick people into giving them money.
Acting: 4
Beginning: 2
Characters: 7
On paper the characters aren’t horrible even if the acting is shoddy. A woman, pretending to be a young boy. A con artist. A pair of jewel smugglers. Together, they’re an interesting group. It’s a wonder the storyline wasn’t more intriguing. Although there is a wide variety of characters they’re pretty flat for the most part making it hard to get emotionally invested.
Cinematography/Visuals: 2
Conflict: 7
Genre: 7
As hard as this movie was to watch at times, I’ve seen worse. I try to have a bit of leniency for older films because they don’t have half the knowledge we have now when it comes to movies. Today’s films have no excuses to be terrible yet they still are. Not saying director George Cukor is completely devoid of blame, but I’m willing to cut a bit of slack here.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 2
Plot: 0
Resolution: 6
Expected and a bit predictable, but at the very least it fit with the overall storyline. It didn’t enhance the film in anyway, but it also didn’t do any further damage.
Overall: 44
Sylvia Scarlett was pretty painful to sit through. I felt like I was being kidnapped because the movie spent most of its time trying to force me to feel something that just wasn’t there. It surprises me that a movie with Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant was such a dud. Like I said, you can’t win ‘em all.
Acting: 4
Beginning: 2
Characters: 7
On paper the characters aren’t horrible even if the acting is shoddy. A woman, pretending to be a young boy. A con artist. A pair of jewel smugglers. Together, they’re an interesting group. It’s a wonder the storyline wasn’t more intriguing. Although there is a wide variety of characters they’re pretty flat for the most part making it hard to get emotionally invested.
Cinematography/Visuals: 2
Conflict: 7
Genre: 7
As hard as this movie was to watch at times, I’ve seen worse. I try to have a bit of leniency for older films because they don’t have half the knowledge we have now when it comes to movies. Today’s films have no excuses to be terrible yet they still are. Not saying director George Cukor is completely devoid of blame, but I’m willing to cut a bit of slack here.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 2
Plot: 0
Resolution: 6
Expected and a bit predictable, but at the very least it fit with the overall storyline. It didn’t enhance the film in anyway, but it also didn’t do any further damage.
Overall: 44
Sylvia Scarlett was pretty painful to sit through. I felt like I was being kidnapped because the movie spent most of its time trying to force me to feel something that just wasn’t there. It surprises me that a movie with Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant was such a dud. Like I said, you can’t win ‘em all.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Hudson Hawk (1991) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Hudson Hawk starts when Hudson (Willis) is released from prison, only to be drawn into committing one more burglary with his partner in crime Tommy Five-Tone (Aiello). The next day Hudson learns that not everything was as simple as just stealing a horse figure.
Hudson learns that the piece that he steals is involved in the world dominations and follow a strange amount of events, finds himself working for Darwin Mayflower (Grant), stealing the great works of Da Vinci.
Thoughts on Hudson Hawk
Characters – Hudson Hawk is a cat burglar that even after getting released from prison ends up back in the world of crime, only after stealing the first piece of art, he ends up needing to battle a world domination plan which takes him to the most famous art galleries in the world. he is wise-cracking that often on makes his own holes deeper without trying to. Tommy Five-Tone is the best friend of Hudson and does work with him on the crimes, he is often the butt of most of the jokes going on through the film. Anna Baragli is a nun that is undercover trying to stop the Da Vinci crystals coming together, she pushes off the flirts from Hudson who doesn’t learn her true place until too late. George Kaplan is the head of the CIA team tracking down Hudson, he knows each move he makes and will follow him to every location the job takes him too.
Performances – Bruce Willis really struggles with anything comical and this shows just how badly he handles this material, Danny Aiello does ok with the supporting comic moments. Andie MacDowell looks lost in this role for the most part, with only James Coburn seemingly knowing his place in the film.
Story – The story follows a cat burglar that gets given a job which soon sees him travel the world forced into helping criminals try to claim world dominance. The story here does feel very messy, it might well surprise where things go, but they do end up feeling completely random and make you feel like you are watching a sketch show rather than a coherent story. this is just a story that becomes difficult to watch and will end up making you lose interest quickly in the film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action plays into the comedy, we have silly moments throughout the film which try to get laughs and fail to achieve this, we do enter a crime world that does feel like it will just be robbery before getting out of hand.
Settings – The film does use the locations of the famous galleries from around the world for the main locations, with each needing to used for the latest robbery.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The comedy is a big miss throughout the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a sloppy comedy that misses more often than it hits, it feels like a drag to watch and completely miss-cast movie.
Overall: Sloppy throughout.
Hudson learns that the piece that he steals is involved in the world dominations and follow a strange amount of events, finds himself working for Darwin Mayflower (Grant), stealing the great works of Da Vinci.
Thoughts on Hudson Hawk
Characters – Hudson Hawk is a cat burglar that even after getting released from prison ends up back in the world of crime, only after stealing the first piece of art, he ends up needing to battle a world domination plan which takes him to the most famous art galleries in the world. he is wise-cracking that often on makes his own holes deeper without trying to. Tommy Five-Tone is the best friend of Hudson and does work with him on the crimes, he is often the butt of most of the jokes going on through the film. Anna Baragli is a nun that is undercover trying to stop the Da Vinci crystals coming together, she pushes off the flirts from Hudson who doesn’t learn her true place until too late. George Kaplan is the head of the CIA team tracking down Hudson, he knows each move he makes and will follow him to every location the job takes him too.
Performances – Bruce Willis really struggles with anything comical and this shows just how badly he handles this material, Danny Aiello does ok with the supporting comic moments. Andie MacDowell looks lost in this role for the most part, with only James Coburn seemingly knowing his place in the film.
Story – The story follows a cat burglar that gets given a job which soon sees him travel the world forced into helping criminals try to claim world dominance. The story here does feel very messy, it might well surprise where things go, but they do end up feeling completely random and make you feel like you are watching a sketch show rather than a coherent story. this is just a story that becomes difficult to watch and will end up making you lose interest quickly in the film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action plays into the comedy, we have silly moments throughout the film which try to get laughs and fail to achieve this, we do enter a crime world that does feel like it will just be robbery before getting out of hand.
Settings – The film does use the locations of the famous galleries from around the world for the main locations, with each needing to used for the latest robbery.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The comedy is a big miss throughout the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a sloppy comedy that misses more often than it hits, it feels like a drag to watch and completely miss-cast movie.
Overall: Sloppy throughout.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Can 8 women do the work of 11, 12 or even 13 men?
The female empowerment #SheToo implications of the title are clearly writ large for this movie! The answer of course…. is a major spoiler, so we won’t go there.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
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)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
After 17 years away from the big screen, Indiana Jones has dusted off his trusty fedora and bullwhip in one of the most eagerly awaited returns to the screen in cinema history. Harrison Ford once again plays the rough and rugged archeologist who is as equally adept in the classroom as he is in the depths of an ancient trap laden chamber.
In “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, audience are re-introduced to Jones, who is by now an older, and wiser man who spent the years of WWII as a special operative which earned him not only the rank of Colonel, but numerous medals and citations.
The film opens with a group of bad guys forcing Indiana to locate an object from a gigantic storage area in the infamous Area 51. Since Jones was part of a team that examined said object nearly a decade earlier, his services are greatly desired, and he is forced to play along with his captors.
Of course Indiana Jones is still a man of action, and soon turns the tables on his captors in a daring and humor filled action sequence that quickly answers those that doubted Ford could pull off his charismatic character in his 60’s.
The events of the situation do not go unnoticed by the U.S. government who suspect Jones of collaborating with the enemy, and in the Red Scare America of the 1950’s Jones soon finds himself suspended from his teaching position and looking to head overseas.
As Indy’s train heads out of town, he is approached by a motorcycle riding messenger who says his name is Mutt (Shia LaBeouf), and he has been sent to find Indy by a former college of Indy’s Professor Oxle (John Hurt). Intrigued, Jones listens to the tale Mutt tells him that people have kidnapped Oxley and his mother, and he shows him a letter that Oxley instructed him to pass along to Indy should anything happen to him.
Before Indy can dig further into the mystery, he and Mutt are accosted by thugs and after a daring race through traffic on Mutt’s motorcycle, find themselves on a plane to South America in search of Oxley and Mutt’s mother as well as the fabled Crystal Skull that legend says will grant amazing powers to anyone who returns it to the fabled Golden City.
Thinking that his old friend Oxley may have succeeded where Indy was unable to many years earlier, Jones takes up the cause of locating the fabled artifact and the city as he believes that they are also the keys to locating his missing friend. The film really slows down here and devotes a good amount of time to advancing the story and characters and thanks to the amazingly detailed sets and enjoyable characters; you may find yourself not minding the change of pace.
Of course there are plenty of bad guys to add to the mix, including the evil Irinia Spalko (Cate Blanchett), who is leading a team of Russian soldiers who also have designs on the skull, as it would give them the power to read and control the minds of the leaders the world over, amongst other powers that would be used for their aggressive agendas.
What follows is an effects-laden adventure leading to a grand finale that is not as spectacular as past films in the series, but enjoyable nonetheless. When the action comes it is solid, and while some of it seems to be a retread of some of the classic moments of the series, it does deliver enough thrills to keep fans happy. There are some very welcome moments in the film such as a nice tribute to Sean Connery and the Late Denholm Elliot as well as a cleverly placed cameo early in the film during the warehouse fight.
Shia LaBeouf is an interesting addition to the series and his scenes with Ford are very enjoyable. They have a natural chemistry and do not seem forced like the Short Round character from “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”. I was also very happy to see Karen Allen return to the series as Marion Ravenwood. She has truly proven to be the only love interest in the series that truly measures up to Indy, and her fiery temper with a girl next door charm is the perfect foil for Jones.
The effects in the film are not groundbreaking, but solid, however some may find that the films plot is a bit to complex and takes too long to setup. There were funny moments in the film to go along with the action and viewers who pay close attention will catch some very subtle nods to other moments in the series.
I was pleased with the sets in the film as Director Steven Speilberg and Producer George Lucas clearly paid attention to details in the look of the film. The tombs and exotic chambers depicted in the film had a very immersive nature to them much the same way that classic Disneyland rides like Pirates of the Caribbean and The Haunted Mansion place guests right in the middle of the spooky and exotic locales. From cobwebs, skeletons, and insects and well as treasures galore, it was like being in on the adventure with Indy.
The series does have some life in it and while the film does not measure up with the first film in the series, I would say it is on par with “Temple of Doom” and was for me, more enjoyable than “The Last Crusade.” The film leaves the door open for yet another adventure, and if comments from Speilberg and Lucas are to be taken seriously, we may see the beloved archeologist back on the big screen in the not too distant future.
In “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, audience are re-introduced to Jones, who is by now an older, and wiser man who spent the years of WWII as a special operative which earned him not only the rank of Colonel, but numerous medals and citations.
The film opens with a group of bad guys forcing Indiana to locate an object from a gigantic storage area in the infamous Area 51. Since Jones was part of a team that examined said object nearly a decade earlier, his services are greatly desired, and he is forced to play along with his captors.
Of course Indiana Jones is still a man of action, and soon turns the tables on his captors in a daring and humor filled action sequence that quickly answers those that doubted Ford could pull off his charismatic character in his 60’s.
The events of the situation do not go unnoticed by the U.S. government who suspect Jones of collaborating with the enemy, and in the Red Scare America of the 1950’s Jones soon finds himself suspended from his teaching position and looking to head overseas.
As Indy’s train heads out of town, he is approached by a motorcycle riding messenger who says his name is Mutt (Shia LaBeouf), and he has been sent to find Indy by a former college of Indy’s Professor Oxle (John Hurt). Intrigued, Jones listens to the tale Mutt tells him that people have kidnapped Oxley and his mother, and he shows him a letter that Oxley instructed him to pass along to Indy should anything happen to him.
Before Indy can dig further into the mystery, he and Mutt are accosted by thugs and after a daring race through traffic on Mutt’s motorcycle, find themselves on a plane to South America in search of Oxley and Mutt’s mother as well as the fabled Crystal Skull that legend says will grant amazing powers to anyone who returns it to the fabled Golden City.
Thinking that his old friend Oxley may have succeeded where Indy was unable to many years earlier, Jones takes up the cause of locating the fabled artifact and the city as he believes that they are also the keys to locating his missing friend. The film really slows down here and devotes a good amount of time to advancing the story and characters and thanks to the amazingly detailed sets and enjoyable characters; you may find yourself not minding the change of pace.
Of course there are plenty of bad guys to add to the mix, including the evil Irinia Spalko (Cate Blanchett), who is leading a team of Russian soldiers who also have designs on the skull, as it would give them the power to read and control the minds of the leaders the world over, amongst other powers that would be used for their aggressive agendas.
What follows is an effects-laden adventure leading to a grand finale that is not as spectacular as past films in the series, but enjoyable nonetheless. When the action comes it is solid, and while some of it seems to be a retread of some of the classic moments of the series, it does deliver enough thrills to keep fans happy. There are some very welcome moments in the film such as a nice tribute to Sean Connery and the Late Denholm Elliot as well as a cleverly placed cameo early in the film during the warehouse fight.
Shia LaBeouf is an interesting addition to the series and his scenes with Ford are very enjoyable. They have a natural chemistry and do not seem forced like the Short Round character from “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”. I was also very happy to see Karen Allen return to the series as Marion Ravenwood. She has truly proven to be the only love interest in the series that truly measures up to Indy, and her fiery temper with a girl next door charm is the perfect foil for Jones.
The effects in the film are not groundbreaking, but solid, however some may find that the films plot is a bit to complex and takes too long to setup. There were funny moments in the film to go along with the action and viewers who pay close attention will catch some very subtle nods to other moments in the series.
I was pleased with the sets in the film as Director Steven Speilberg and Producer George Lucas clearly paid attention to details in the look of the film. The tombs and exotic chambers depicted in the film had a very immersive nature to them much the same way that classic Disneyland rides like Pirates of the Caribbean and The Haunted Mansion place guests right in the middle of the spooky and exotic locales. From cobwebs, skeletons, and insects and well as treasures galore, it was like being in on the adventure with Indy.
The series does have some life in it and while the film does not measure up with the first film in the series, I would say it is on par with “Temple of Doom” and was for me, more enjoyable than “The Last Crusade.” The film leaves the door open for yet another adventure, and if comments from Speilberg and Lucas are to be taken seriously, we may see the beloved archeologist back on the big screen in the not too distant future.
Sarah (126 KP) Jul 19, 2018