Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Asteroid City (2023) in Movies
Jun 30, 2023
Too "Wes Anderson" For It's Own Good
If you watched the Oscar Nominated Wes Anderson film THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL back in 2014 and thought to yourself - “I want more of this type of thing - only turned up to 11”, then does the BankofMarquis have a film for you.
ASTEROID CITY is the most Wes Anderson film that Wes Anderson has ever filmed.
It is up to you to decide whether that’s a good or bad thing.
A movie within a play within a narration (yes, it’s that “meta”), ASTEROID CITY tells the tale of a group of folks congregating in a timeframe that seems to scream “1950’s America” in a very small, isolated Southwestern American town that seems to scream “Los Alamos, New Mexico” and the life, loves, adventures - and wry comments of the events therein - that these folks encounter/endure all wrapped up in the pastel colored, dry-pan delivered style that has become the signature of a Wes Anderson film.
Populated - as is always the case these days with a Wes Anderson film - by a veritable who’s who of actors who seem to be in on the joke - or at least want to appear that they are part of the “cool kids club”. Names like Anderson regulars Jason Schwartzman, Liev Schrieber, Willem Dafoe and Ed Norton mix in with Anderson newcomers like Tom Hanks, Steve Carrell and Scarlett Johansson succeed more than they fail, but the film falls down from the heights of THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL by becoming “too cute” for it’s own good.
Central to the story is the relationship between Schwartzman’s War Photographer and Johansson’s movie star but this relationship fails to draw the audience in because of the presentational, deadpan style of Anderson’s delivery of the material. Same goes for Hanks’ portrayal of Schwartzman’s father, Carrell’s portrayal of the Motel Manager and Schrieber’s portrayal of another parent at the hotel.
Jeffrey Wright and Tilda Swinton are the most successful of the players as their characters are aloof and mysterious - and the style that Anderson throws at this film leans towards these types of characters…but it leaves the audience at arms’ length.
Special notice should be made of Margot Robbie’s one scene as her character is spoken of, but not seen…until she is.. and her scene is the most interesting in the film.
And…the BankofMarquis hasn’t even mentioned Edward Norton’s playwright (who writes the play that this movie is based on) and Adrian Brody as the Director of the play. The are brought on screen from time to time to archly comment and/or explain the goings-on.
This being an Anderson film, the visuals are stunning and original (but, ironically, familiar to Wes Anderson regulars) and this is the main reason to see this film, it is visually rich and interesting…and different…of a film to look at.
But…Wes Anderson needed to lean away (not into) being…Wes Anderson.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
ASTEROID CITY is the most Wes Anderson film that Wes Anderson has ever filmed.
It is up to you to decide whether that’s a good or bad thing.
A movie within a play within a narration (yes, it’s that “meta”), ASTEROID CITY tells the tale of a group of folks congregating in a timeframe that seems to scream “1950’s America” in a very small, isolated Southwestern American town that seems to scream “Los Alamos, New Mexico” and the life, loves, adventures - and wry comments of the events therein - that these folks encounter/endure all wrapped up in the pastel colored, dry-pan delivered style that has become the signature of a Wes Anderson film.
Populated - as is always the case these days with a Wes Anderson film - by a veritable who’s who of actors who seem to be in on the joke - or at least want to appear that they are part of the “cool kids club”. Names like Anderson regulars Jason Schwartzman, Liev Schrieber, Willem Dafoe and Ed Norton mix in with Anderson newcomers like Tom Hanks, Steve Carrell and Scarlett Johansson succeed more than they fail, but the film falls down from the heights of THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL by becoming “too cute” for it’s own good.
Central to the story is the relationship between Schwartzman’s War Photographer and Johansson’s movie star but this relationship fails to draw the audience in because of the presentational, deadpan style of Anderson’s delivery of the material. Same goes for Hanks’ portrayal of Schwartzman’s father, Carrell’s portrayal of the Motel Manager and Schrieber’s portrayal of another parent at the hotel.
Jeffrey Wright and Tilda Swinton are the most successful of the players as their characters are aloof and mysterious - and the style that Anderson throws at this film leans towards these types of characters…but it leaves the audience at arms’ length.
Special notice should be made of Margot Robbie’s one scene as her character is spoken of, but not seen…until she is.. and her scene is the most interesting in the film.
And…the BankofMarquis hasn’t even mentioned Edward Norton’s playwright (who writes the play that this movie is based on) and Adrian Brody as the Director of the play. The are brought on screen from time to time to archly comment and/or explain the goings-on.
This being an Anderson film, the visuals are stunning and original (but, ironically, familiar to Wes Anderson regulars) and this is the main reason to see this film, it is visually rich and interesting…and different…of a film to look at.
But…Wes Anderson needed to lean away (not into) being…Wes Anderson.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
Jun 16, 2021
Surprising Depth of Character and GREAT action
I am always up for a good “B” action flick - something mindless that shows a macho hero (usually seeking revenge) taking out a boatload of faceless/nameless bad guys. So it was with much anticipation that I settled back into my chair to clear my head and catch Jason Statham doing what he does best.
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated Star Wars, Vol. 2: Showdown on the Smuggler's Moon in Books
Aug 9, 2019
Note: this review is transposted from my personal review blog, and so was originally written several years ago. I figured if I reposted it here, someone might actually read it….
I very much enjoyed the first volume of Marvel’s ongoing Star Wars series, but many other reviewers took issue with it for playing things safe and giving us a story like many we’d seen before. These criticisms are not completely unfounded, I’ll admit, but neither are they completely fair. Either way, this is not a problem the series has going forward…. This second volume also includes the one-off flashback story THE LAST OF HIS BREED, featuring Obi-Wan Kenobi adjusting to his exile on Tatooine, which is discussed separately below.
Luke Skywalker has successfully escaped the clutches of the bounty hunter Boba Fett, but all he got for his troubles was the journal of Obi-Wan Kenobi–no small prize, but probably not all that helpful in furthering his Jedi training. So what’s the next logical step in learning about the Jedi? Try and sneak onto Coruscant to infiltrate the old Jedi Temple, of course! But when his attempt to find a discreet ship and pilot in a seedy bar on Nar Shaddaa goes horribly awry, Luke finds himself the prisoner of Grakkus the Hutt. In addition to the traditional crime and vice, Grakkus has made a name for himself as one of the foremost collectors of Jedi artifacts. Now Luke faces the battle of his life in Grakkus’ arena, billed as “the last Jedi” and pitted against a fearsome creature for the amusement of Grakkus’ fellow crime lords….Meanwhile, Han and Leia are out scouting potential locations for a new Rebel base when they run across a figure from Han’s past. Her name is Sana, and she claims to be his wife….
As with the previous volume, this was some stellar work. Jason Aaron nails the banter between Han & Leia, to the point where you can almost hear Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford delivering the lines, and Luke’s mix of cockiness and self-doubt is spot-on for his character and situation. Also of note is Stuart Immonen’s spectacular artwork. From the character closeups to the panoramic vistas, this was pure Star Wars. Also amusing was watching our entire cast wade into battle wielding lightsabers. Did Luke manage to salvage anything of value from Grakkus’ stash on his way out? I guess we’ll have to wait and see….
Then there’s the Obi-Wan backup story. It’s been seven years since the rise of the Empire, seven years since the death of the Jedi and the Republic. Formerly one of the greatest Jedi of his generation, now Obi-Wan Kenobi lives a life of obscurity on the desert planet of Tatooine. Where once he protected the innocent of the galaxy, now “Old Ben” forces himself to look the other way lest he draw the Empire’s notice as Jabba’s thugs extort water from the locals. All that matters is protecting the boy, Luke Skywalker, on whose unknowing shoulders rest the fate of the galaxy. But there are limits to the patience of even the greatest of Jedi….
This was a good one. The story was solid, and it’s always interesting to see Obi-Wan’s state of mind during his exile. Was this done better in John Jackson Miller’s KENOBI? Yes. That goes without saying, if only because he had more than twenty-four pages to tell his story. At any rate, KENOBI isn’t canon anymore, so we’ll not dwell on it. Simone Bianchi’s art here was stellar, I must say, and his Kenobi managed to blend Ewan McGregor and Alec Guinness superbly. I would very much like to see more of these one-off excerpts from Obi-Wan’s journal appear in future issues of the comic.
CONTENT: Moderate violence, not too gruesome most of the time. Mild profanity. Mild sexual innuendo and flirting.
Original posts: Main story (https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/review-star-wars-showdown-on-the-smugglers-moon-by-jason-aaron-stuart-immonen/) & Obi-Wan Flashback (https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/review-star-wars-the-last-of-his-breed-by-jason-aaron-simone-bianchi/)
I very much enjoyed the first volume of Marvel’s ongoing Star Wars series, but many other reviewers took issue with it for playing things safe and giving us a story like many we’d seen before. These criticisms are not completely unfounded, I’ll admit, but neither are they completely fair. Either way, this is not a problem the series has going forward…. This second volume also includes the one-off flashback story THE LAST OF HIS BREED, featuring Obi-Wan Kenobi adjusting to his exile on Tatooine, which is discussed separately below.
Luke Skywalker has successfully escaped the clutches of the bounty hunter Boba Fett, but all he got for his troubles was the journal of Obi-Wan Kenobi–no small prize, but probably not all that helpful in furthering his Jedi training. So what’s the next logical step in learning about the Jedi? Try and sneak onto Coruscant to infiltrate the old Jedi Temple, of course! But when his attempt to find a discreet ship and pilot in a seedy bar on Nar Shaddaa goes horribly awry, Luke finds himself the prisoner of Grakkus the Hutt. In addition to the traditional crime and vice, Grakkus has made a name for himself as one of the foremost collectors of Jedi artifacts. Now Luke faces the battle of his life in Grakkus’ arena, billed as “the last Jedi” and pitted against a fearsome creature for the amusement of Grakkus’ fellow crime lords….Meanwhile, Han and Leia are out scouting potential locations for a new Rebel base when they run across a figure from Han’s past. Her name is Sana, and she claims to be his wife….
As with the previous volume, this was some stellar work. Jason Aaron nails the banter between Han & Leia, to the point where you can almost hear Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford delivering the lines, and Luke’s mix of cockiness and self-doubt is spot-on for his character and situation. Also of note is Stuart Immonen’s spectacular artwork. From the character closeups to the panoramic vistas, this was pure Star Wars. Also amusing was watching our entire cast wade into battle wielding lightsabers. Did Luke manage to salvage anything of value from Grakkus’ stash on his way out? I guess we’ll have to wait and see….
Then there’s the Obi-Wan backup story. It’s been seven years since the rise of the Empire, seven years since the death of the Jedi and the Republic. Formerly one of the greatest Jedi of his generation, now Obi-Wan Kenobi lives a life of obscurity on the desert planet of Tatooine. Where once he protected the innocent of the galaxy, now “Old Ben” forces himself to look the other way lest he draw the Empire’s notice as Jabba’s thugs extort water from the locals. All that matters is protecting the boy, Luke Skywalker, on whose unknowing shoulders rest the fate of the galaxy. But there are limits to the patience of even the greatest of Jedi….
This was a good one. The story was solid, and it’s always interesting to see Obi-Wan’s state of mind during his exile. Was this done better in John Jackson Miller’s KENOBI? Yes. That goes without saying, if only because he had more than twenty-four pages to tell his story. At any rate, KENOBI isn’t canon anymore, so we’ll not dwell on it. Simone Bianchi’s art here was stellar, I must say, and his Kenobi managed to blend Ewan McGregor and Alec Guinness superbly. I would very much like to see more of these one-off excerpts from Obi-Wan’s journal appear in future issues of the comic.
CONTENT: Moderate violence, not too gruesome most of the time. Mild profanity. Mild sexual innuendo and flirting.
Original posts: Main story (https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/review-star-wars-showdown-on-the-smugglers-moon-by-jason-aaron-stuart-immonen/) & Obi-Wan Flashback (https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/review-star-wars-the-last-of-his-breed-by-jason-aaron-simone-bianchi/)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Nov 1, 2020)
A Really Good Remake
Pet Semetary is a 2019 supernatural horror movie directed by Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer. The movie was written by Jeff Buhler with screen story by Matt Greenberg. It is a remake/reboot of the original 1989 film adaptation of the 1983 Stephen King novel. Starring Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz, and John Lithgow.
Moving to the small town of Ludlow, Maine with his family: wife, Rachel (Amy Seimetz), children, Ellie (Jete Laurence) and Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie), and Church, Ellie's cat, Louis Creed takes a job at the university's hospital. Ellie stumbles upon a procession of children, while exploring the nearby woods of their new home, who are taking a dead dog to a pet cemetery. Their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), finds Ellie climbing a large stack of branches forming a wall and warns Rachel and Ellie not to venture out alone as the woods can be dangerous.. The following day, Louis fails to save a student Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) fatally injured from a car accident, and is left shaken. That night Louis meets Pascow in a vivid dream, where he is lead to the pet cemetery and warned not to "venture beyond". When Louis awakens he is disturbed to find his bed sheets and feet, muddy and dirty suggesting his "vision" could be more than just a bad dream.
As far as remakes go this one was really good. Especially for the horror genre. I mean I can't tell you how many remakes/reboots I've seen that just bomb and don't do the original justice. This one however seemed to keep the original in mind, while still making changes to keep it fresh and relatively different. That being said I do feel it was a bit over-hyped and didn't live up to certain expectations. To me it was a very creepy movie and had me wanting to cover my eyes in one part as memories from the original played back in my head. The sounds of the character Rachel's sister calling out to her got goosebumps on my forearms. Those parts were very unsettling to me but I didn't feel enough was "scary". I really enjoyed the twists and changes or differences from the original. They were welcome and kept it from being an exact replica and a copy of the original. As another critic stated, Jeffrey M. Anderson-Common Sense Media, the film was "...effectively unsettling, focusing on the characters and their understandable emotions rather than on overt gore and FX." I give it a 7/10.
Moving to the small town of Ludlow, Maine with his family: wife, Rachel (Amy Seimetz), children, Ellie (Jete Laurence) and Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie), and Church, Ellie's cat, Louis Creed takes a job at the university's hospital. Ellie stumbles upon a procession of children, while exploring the nearby woods of their new home, who are taking a dead dog to a pet cemetery. Their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), finds Ellie climbing a large stack of branches forming a wall and warns Rachel and Ellie not to venture out alone as the woods can be dangerous.. The following day, Louis fails to save a student Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) fatally injured from a car accident, and is left shaken. That night Louis meets Pascow in a vivid dream, where he is lead to the pet cemetery and warned not to "venture beyond". When Louis awakens he is disturbed to find his bed sheets and feet, muddy and dirty suggesting his "vision" could be more than just a bad dream.
As far as remakes go this one was really good. Especially for the horror genre. I mean I can't tell you how many remakes/reboots I've seen that just bomb and don't do the original justice. This one however seemed to keep the original in mind, while still making changes to keep it fresh and relatively different. That being said I do feel it was a bit over-hyped and didn't live up to certain expectations. To me it was a very creepy movie and had me wanting to cover my eyes in one part as memories from the original played back in my head. The sounds of the character Rachel's sister calling out to her got goosebumps on my forearms. Those parts were very unsettling to me but I didn't feel enough was "scary". I really enjoyed the twists and changes or differences from the original. They were welcome and kept it from being an exact replica and a copy of the original. As another critic stated, Jeffrey M. Anderson-Common Sense Media, the film was "...effectively unsettling, focusing on the characters and their understandable emotions rather than on overt gore and FX." I give it a 7/10.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2020
Cut what worked in the musical and left in what didn't
I had heard that the movie version of the mega-Broadway hit musical CATS was a "total trainwreck" with bizarre performances and CGI that was incomplete and/or incompetently done making these CATS look more like FREAKS, so I was looking forward to a "so bad it's good" experience at the film. But, instead of being horrified or bemused, I felt another emotion while watching this...
BOREDOM.
I've never been a real fan of the Broadway production - I witnessed the original cast back in the early 1980's and had a follow-up viewing of the show on Broadway in the mid-to-late '90's when 2 people I know were in the cast and both times I enjoyed the music (for the most part) and the dancing was SUPERB, but I was left disappointed by the characters and the plot (or lack thereof) of this show.
And...that's the biggest problem with the film version of CATS, Director Tom Hooper (LES MISERABLES) decided to focus this film ON the characters and the performances - headlined by such stalwarts as Dame Judy Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Idris, Elba, Ray Winstone, Jennifer Hudson, James Cordon and Rebel Wilson - and ignore the spectacle of the musical numbers and, most heinously, ignoring the dancing aspect of this musical. This approach, quite frankly, just did not work.
Now...add onto this questionable CGI (I'm being kind), a languid pace (I'm being kind) and performers who were miscast (I'm looking at you Idris Elba, Rebel Wilson, Ray Winstone and...if I'm being honest...Ian McKellan and Judy Dench), and don't get me started on Jason Derullo's RumTum Tugger and Taylor Swift's Bumbalurna (really?) - they were just plain awful. Derullo, especially, turned a fun, energizing driving character into a boring embodiment of all that is wrong with this film (okay...Rebel Wilson was worse, but still....) the only players in this film that kept my attention were stage performers like Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) and Francesca Hayward (Victoria) and they were sidelined for the most part by the bigger names and had their dance numbers eliminated and/or truncated.
I wish they would have gone for the campy "so bad, it's good" style of filmmaking - it, at least, would have kept my interest, but the movie as it is, did not. I was happy when the "Jellicle Cat" was selected at the end - I knew this experience would be over soon.
Letter Grade D
2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BOREDOM.
I've never been a real fan of the Broadway production - I witnessed the original cast back in the early 1980's and had a follow-up viewing of the show on Broadway in the mid-to-late '90's when 2 people I know were in the cast and both times I enjoyed the music (for the most part) and the dancing was SUPERB, but I was left disappointed by the characters and the plot (or lack thereof) of this show.
And...that's the biggest problem with the film version of CATS, Director Tom Hooper (LES MISERABLES) decided to focus this film ON the characters and the performances - headlined by such stalwarts as Dame Judy Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Idris, Elba, Ray Winstone, Jennifer Hudson, James Cordon and Rebel Wilson - and ignore the spectacle of the musical numbers and, most heinously, ignoring the dancing aspect of this musical. This approach, quite frankly, just did not work.
Now...add onto this questionable CGI (I'm being kind), a languid pace (I'm being kind) and performers who were miscast (I'm looking at you Idris Elba, Rebel Wilson, Ray Winstone and...if I'm being honest...Ian McKellan and Judy Dench), and don't get me started on Jason Derullo's RumTum Tugger and Taylor Swift's Bumbalurna (really?) - they were just plain awful. Derullo, especially, turned a fun, energizing driving character into a boring embodiment of all that is wrong with this film (okay...Rebel Wilson was worse, but still....) the only players in this film that kept my attention were stage performers like Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) and Francesca Hayward (Victoria) and they were sidelined for the most part by the bigger names and had their dance numbers eliminated and/or truncated.
I wish they would have gone for the campy "so bad, it's good" style of filmmaking - it, at least, would have kept my interest, but the movie as it is, did not. I was happy when the "Jellicle Cat" was selected at the end - I knew this experience would be over soon.
Letter Grade D
2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Fast X (2023) in Movies
May 17, 2023
Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) is enjoying the good life as a husband and a
father and has found himself happy with his life but admits that he
worries about losing the ones he loves. In “FastX” which is the latest
film in the long-running series; the sins of the past are about to return
to wreak revenge upon Dominic and his crew.
Linking the events of the sixth film in the series, the crew find
themselves setup and framed after an extended and intense action sequence
in Rome and are on the run from the very agency they have been working
for.
The enigmatic and flamboyant Dante (Jason Mom); always seems to be
one step ahead of the team which finds themselves scattered at various
locations around the world which gives them plenty of time to fight,
drive, tech, and plan their next step in what is increasingly becoming a
deadly game from which there seems to be no way to survive.
The film has a very large cast and it is great to see the faces old and new
pop in and out of the film while they focus on the core characters. The
film does have some slow segments between the action but this is done to
establish new characters and develop the family relationships between
others as a family is a large theme of the series.
This is both a good and bad thing as it is nice to see so many characters
but some have little more than a brief cameo and others get more time than
is necessary. With so many moving parts and locations; the film does
deliver what fans will expect as the creators know the formula that has
made the series such a success and make sure that the over-the-top,
absurd, bombastic, adrenaline ride of the series remains even though it
requires the audience to throw logic and reason out the window and just go
along with the intense stunts and action sequences.
The film sets up the planned next film well and there are some interesting
side stories that I am curious to see how they will be developed in the
next film which had been reported to be the finale of the series before
spin-offs would carry the franchise forward.
It has been reported that Universal has asked for a twelfth film to make
the finale a trilogy and based on the latest outing, there is still enough
gas in the tank to give fans a flawed yet enjoyable summer Popcorn movie.
3.5 stars out of 5
father and has found himself happy with his life but admits that he
worries about losing the ones he loves. In “FastX” which is the latest
film in the long-running series; the sins of the past are about to return
to wreak revenge upon Dominic and his crew.
Linking the events of the sixth film in the series, the crew find
themselves setup and framed after an extended and intense action sequence
in Rome and are on the run from the very agency they have been working
for.
The enigmatic and flamboyant Dante (Jason Mom); always seems to be
one step ahead of the team which finds themselves scattered at various
locations around the world which gives them plenty of time to fight,
drive, tech, and plan their next step in what is increasingly becoming a
deadly game from which there seems to be no way to survive.
The film has a very large cast and it is great to see the faces old and new
pop in and out of the film while they focus on the core characters. The
film does have some slow segments between the action but this is done to
establish new characters and develop the family relationships between
others as a family is a large theme of the series.
This is both a good and bad thing as it is nice to see so many characters
but some have little more than a brief cameo and others get more time than
is necessary. With so many moving parts and locations; the film does
deliver what fans will expect as the creators know the formula that has
made the series such a success and make sure that the over-the-top,
absurd, bombastic, adrenaline ride of the series remains even though it
requires the audience to throw logic and reason out the window and just go
along with the intense stunts and action sequences.
The film sets up the planned next film well and there are some interesting
side stories that I am curious to see how they will be developed in the
next film which had been reported to be the finale of the series before
spin-offs would carry the franchise forward.
It has been reported that Universal has asked for a twelfth film to make
the finale a trilogy and based on the latest outing, there is still enough
gas in the tank to give fans a flawed yet enjoyable summer Popcorn movie.
3.5 stars out of 5
Lee (2222 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Apr 2, 2019 (Updated Apr 5, 2019)
Not only have I not read the Stephen King book that Pet Sematary is based on, I haven't even seen the original 1989 movie either. As much as I feel ashamed for completely missing out on both of those, it also meant that I was able to head into this movie with nothing to compare it to and no idea of what to expect, other than a bit of creepy-burial-ground-raising-the-dead type stuff that the first trailer covered. One quick note on the trailers before I begin though - the most recent one, which luckily I only saw after I had seen the movie, pretty much gives away the entire plot. Granted, if you're a fan of Stephen Kings work, or even the original movie, then you're going to know what to expect anyway. But, if you're like me - someone who enjoys a good horror movie, but doesn't read books and has gaping holes in his movie viewing history, then try and give the trailers a miss on this occasion before heading into the cinema.
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) is a Boston doctor who moves his family to the (hopefully) less chaotic setting of rural Maine - wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), 8 year old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), toddler Gage and friendly family cat Church. However, the family soon discover that their house is located right alongside a road which is prone to noisy trucks suddenly speeding past - our first jump scare and something already given away by the trailers! Those trucks also have a tendency to end the lives of any local pets who might happen to wander out in front of them, so it's pretty handy that there happens to be a Native American graveyard out in the woods at the back of the Creed's new house.
The local children make good use of the area, carrying out a funeral procession while wearing masks before burying deceased pets there, and they have also erected a sign - "Pet Sematary", which is nailed to one of the trees outside of it. Unfortunately, it's not too long before Church falls victim to a passing truck, at which point friendly neighbour Jud (John Lithgow) tells Louis of a special burial ritual which can be carried out on an area of ground located even further into the forest. It's a ritual that can bring the dead back to life so, in order to avoid upsetting daughter Ellie, Louis keeps the death a secret until he and Jud can head out late that night to perform the ritual with Church. Sure enough, Church is back with the family the next morning - alive, but looking very disheveled and in a seriously grumpy mood. He's not quite the cute little bundle of joy he once was - as Jud puts it, "Sometimes dead is better".
After banging on earlier about spoilers for movies, I feel it would be wrong of me to go and do the same thing here. If you're familiar with the story, then you'll know what happens anyway, although there is a moderate change of detail in this particular version which has already had a few die hard Stephen King fans up in arms. I'll just say that the special properties of the burial ground get used on a few more occasions during the course of the movie, with increasingly devastating consequences, and I personally felt that the change to the source material totally worked within the confines of this version of the story.
Ok, so what did I think of the movie overall? Well, I found Pet Sematary to be pretty intense, even more so than 'Us' recently. There were a couple of guys to the side of me in the cinema who were sitting forward on the edge of their seat for the majority of the movie just hyperventilating - I thought they were going to have a heart attack at one point! Yes, there are some jump scares, but this was more the kind of nightmare horror that I loved while watching 'Us' and it had me gripped to my seat for a good 80% or so of its run-time. Everyone involved in the movie is on top form - the children are outstanding, as is Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, even the cat! The dread-filled atmosphere, the tragedy and the horror of it all, it really resonated with me and I came away from this exhausted but happy!
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) is a Boston doctor who moves his family to the (hopefully) less chaotic setting of rural Maine - wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), 8 year old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), toddler Gage and friendly family cat Church. However, the family soon discover that their house is located right alongside a road which is prone to noisy trucks suddenly speeding past - our first jump scare and something already given away by the trailers! Those trucks also have a tendency to end the lives of any local pets who might happen to wander out in front of them, so it's pretty handy that there happens to be a Native American graveyard out in the woods at the back of the Creed's new house.
The local children make good use of the area, carrying out a funeral procession while wearing masks before burying deceased pets there, and they have also erected a sign - "Pet Sematary", which is nailed to one of the trees outside of it. Unfortunately, it's not too long before Church falls victim to a passing truck, at which point friendly neighbour Jud (John Lithgow) tells Louis of a special burial ritual which can be carried out on an area of ground located even further into the forest. It's a ritual that can bring the dead back to life so, in order to avoid upsetting daughter Ellie, Louis keeps the death a secret until he and Jud can head out late that night to perform the ritual with Church. Sure enough, Church is back with the family the next morning - alive, but looking very disheveled and in a seriously grumpy mood. He's not quite the cute little bundle of joy he once was - as Jud puts it, "Sometimes dead is better".
After banging on earlier about spoilers for movies, I feel it would be wrong of me to go and do the same thing here. If you're familiar with the story, then you'll know what happens anyway, although there is a moderate change of detail in this particular version which has already had a few die hard Stephen King fans up in arms. I'll just say that the special properties of the burial ground get used on a few more occasions during the course of the movie, with increasingly devastating consequences, and I personally felt that the change to the source material totally worked within the confines of this version of the story.
Ok, so what did I think of the movie overall? Well, I found Pet Sematary to be pretty intense, even more so than 'Us' recently. There were a couple of guys to the side of me in the cinema who were sitting forward on the edge of their seat for the majority of the movie just hyperventilating - I thought they were going to have a heart attack at one point! Yes, there are some jump scares, but this was more the kind of nightmare horror that I loved while watching 'Us' and it had me gripped to my seat for a good 80% or so of its run-time. Everyone involved in the movie is on top form - the children are outstanding, as is Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, even the cat! The dread-filled atmosphere, the tragedy and the horror of it all, it really resonated with me and I came away from this exhausted but happy!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Jan 19, 2020
Well Acted Scenes Do Not A Good Movie Make
Noah Baumbach is one of those filmmakers that is highly regarded in the "Art House" community for his semi-autobiographical humanistic films. These are domestic dramas heavy on dialogue - the type of film that "A-List" Actors swarm to perform in for the acting challenges it brings. His latest, MARRIAGE STORY, is no exception as it follows the dissolution of a marriage and the struggles of the 2 main players involved. The husband and wife are written realistically (according to Baumbach) with moments of pathos and moments of repulsion thrown in at equal measure.
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Oppenheimer (2023) in Movies
Jul 27, 2023
Gonna Win A Ton of Awards
Clear your shelves, Christopher Nolan and many of those involved in the making of his new movie OPPENHEIMER, you’re going to need the space for the many, many trophies you are going to receive next spring.
Based on the life of the “Father of the Atomic Bomb”, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nolan’s latest epic is a rarity in today’s Motion Picture landscape - a prestige picture, bankrolled lavishly, filmed gorgeously and populated with a veritable who’s who of “A” list actors that tells a complex story of a complicated man who ends up remorseful of what he has unleashed in this world.
And it works very, very well.
Nolan regular, Cillian Murphy, is equal parts quirky, driven, determined and haunted in his multi-layered performance as the titular character - who is in almost every scene of this 3 hour film. He is fascinating to watch and his “more internal than external” performance draws the audience in throughout the events depicted in this film. It is the Best Performance of the career of one of the most interesting actors of this generation and one should not be surprised if his name is called during awards season next year.
Murphy is capably supported by a long list of strong performers giving strong performances in roles that are much smaller than ones they normally receive. Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett(!), Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Matthew Modine, Kenneth Branagh (of course, it’s a Nolan film), Jason Clarke and Alden Ehrenreich bring their “A” game to roles that could have been thrown away.
Also, good ol’ Tom Conti (one of the most interesting actors from the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s) shows up in this film as Albert Einstein and reminds us all why he is such a good performer…and…wait until you see who shows up for one scene in this film as President Harry S. Truman!
Oh…and don’t forget Emily Blunt (as Oppenheimer’s wife) and (surprisingly) Robert Downey, Jr. (as a politician using Oppenheimer for his own purposes). Both of them put in Award-winning-level uspporting performances, elevating two “A” list actors to the “A+ list”.
But this film is more than just it’s performers. Nolan demands - and receives - top notch work from the Cinematographer, the Sound Designer, the Editor, the Costume Designer and the Composer (Ludwig Goranssson, NOT Nolan regular Hans Zimmer). They (along with Nolan) craft a beautifully made and put together film that will dazzle the senses. If you get a chance, see this film in a movie theater and, if you can, see it in either iMAX or 70mm, you will be glad you did.
What holds this film back - just a little bit - is the story that is being told. Nolan (as he is want to do) plays with time and pretty frenetically cuts back and forth between about 4 different timelines to tell this story. It’s effective most of the time, but at other times, it becomes distracting and….with a 3 hour run time…does drag a bit at times.
But these are quibbles to a film that is “as good as it gets” by the BEST DIRECTOR plying his trade today. It is another triumph for Nolan and he will be making many, many acceptance speeches in just a few short months.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the life of the “Father of the Atomic Bomb”, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nolan’s latest epic is a rarity in today’s Motion Picture landscape - a prestige picture, bankrolled lavishly, filmed gorgeously and populated with a veritable who’s who of “A” list actors that tells a complex story of a complicated man who ends up remorseful of what he has unleashed in this world.
And it works very, very well.
Nolan regular, Cillian Murphy, is equal parts quirky, driven, determined and haunted in his multi-layered performance as the titular character - who is in almost every scene of this 3 hour film. He is fascinating to watch and his “more internal than external” performance draws the audience in throughout the events depicted in this film. It is the Best Performance of the career of one of the most interesting actors of this generation and one should not be surprised if his name is called during awards season next year.
Murphy is capably supported by a long list of strong performers giving strong performances in roles that are much smaller than ones they normally receive. Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett(!), Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Matthew Modine, Kenneth Branagh (of course, it’s a Nolan film), Jason Clarke and Alden Ehrenreich bring their “A” game to roles that could have been thrown away.
Also, good ol’ Tom Conti (one of the most interesting actors from the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s) shows up in this film as Albert Einstein and reminds us all why he is such a good performer…and…wait until you see who shows up for one scene in this film as President Harry S. Truman!
Oh…and don’t forget Emily Blunt (as Oppenheimer’s wife) and (surprisingly) Robert Downey, Jr. (as a politician using Oppenheimer for his own purposes). Both of them put in Award-winning-level uspporting performances, elevating two “A” list actors to the “A+ list”.
But this film is more than just it’s performers. Nolan demands - and receives - top notch work from the Cinematographer, the Sound Designer, the Editor, the Costume Designer and the Composer (Ludwig Goranssson, NOT Nolan regular Hans Zimmer). They (along with Nolan) craft a beautifully made and put together film that will dazzle the senses. If you get a chance, see this film in a movie theater and, if you can, see it in either iMAX or 70mm, you will be glad you did.
What holds this film back - just a little bit - is the story that is being told. Nolan (as he is want to do) plays with time and pretty frenetically cuts back and forth between about 4 different timelines to tell this story. It’s effective most of the time, but at other times, it becomes distracting and….with a 3 hour run time…does drag a bit at times.
But these are quibbles to a film that is “as good as it gets” by the BEST DIRECTOR plying his trade today. It is another triumph for Nolan and he will be making many, many acceptance speeches in just a few short months.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
TacoDave (3607 KP) rated Young In My Head by Starflyer 59 in Music
May 9, 2019 (Updated May 9, 2019)
songs (3 more)
instruments
vocals
vibe
15 Albums In and Starflyer 59 Still Rocks
If you've never heard of Starflyer 59, I have a treat for you.
What began as a "shoegazer" band in the mid 90's (think Smashing Pumpkins meets The Smiths) has progressed over the years through heavy, chunky guitars, to Brit-pop mixed with synth, to this new album which just ... rocks. With the release of the band's 15th full album (not to mention many EPs and collections), band lead Jason Martin has shown that he's still got it. "Young In My Head" is soothing, catchy rock that is perfect driving music.
I'll attach a Youtube link so you can hear the title song from the album.
The songs themselves are catchy in a way that makes you sing along without realizing it. The lyrics are surprisingly melancholy, dealing with growing older and realizing that you aren't the energetic kid you were when you started ("It's been 25/since I wrote/Blue Collar Love/Man, I had my turn/I need to go/Stayed longer than most"). But the music still has an upbeat groove to it that keeps it from feeling depressing. Martin walks that line between melancholy and depression like an expert.
My only complaint isn't really a complaint: Starflyer has some of the best guitar solos to end songs, and this album is no different, but they feel truncated - like they cut out too early. I would love longer outros like they used on older albums. Listen to the song "Cry," for a good example - the end of the song is amazing, beginning at 2:00, but it doesn't last long enough.
In the past 25 years Starflyer 59 has not released a bad album. Each album has a different sound and groove to it, but they are all undeniably Starflyer. I, for one, will continue to listen to their albums and hope they go another 25 years.
What began as a "shoegazer" band in the mid 90's (think Smashing Pumpkins meets The Smiths) has progressed over the years through heavy, chunky guitars, to Brit-pop mixed with synth, to this new album which just ... rocks. With the release of the band's 15th full album (not to mention many EPs and collections), band lead Jason Martin has shown that he's still got it. "Young In My Head" is soothing, catchy rock that is perfect driving music.
I'll attach a Youtube link so you can hear the title song from the album.
The songs themselves are catchy in a way that makes you sing along without realizing it. The lyrics are surprisingly melancholy, dealing with growing older and realizing that you aren't the energetic kid you were when you started ("It's been 25/since I wrote/Blue Collar Love/Man, I had my turn/I need to go/Stayed longer than most"). But the music still has an upbeat groove to it that keeps it from feeling depressing. Martin walks that line between melancholy and depression like an expert.
My only complaint isn't really a complaint: Starflyer has some of the best guitar solos to end songs, and this album is no different, but they feel truncated - like they cut out too early. I would love longer outros like they used on older albums. Listen to the song "Cry," for a good example - the end of the song is amazing, beginning at 2:00, but it doesn't last long enough.
In the past 25 years Starflyer 59 has not released a bad album. Each album has a different sound and groove to it, but they are all undeniably Starflyer. I, for one, will continue to listen to their albums and hope they go another 25 years.