Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Treasure Planet (2002) in Movies
Mar 26, 2020 (Updated Mar 26, 2020)
Pirates Ahoy
Treasure Planet- is a strange movie, it came out in the early 2000's and thats when Disney was running out of ideas or starting to. I believe that their were starting to run out of ideas. Treasure Planet- is a strange movie, cause it came out after "The Lion King". And the movie's after "The Lion King" were stange. What im saying is after "The Lion King", disney decided to go really strange/a huge left turn/didn't expect that/disappointed and overall a huge downfall. But i will get to those movies. Oh this is one of them.
The Plot: The legendary "loot of a thousand worlds" inspires an intergalactic treasure hunt when 15-year-old Jim Hawkins stumbles upon a map to the greatest pirate trove in the universe in Walt Disney Pictures' thrilling animated space adventure, "Treasure Planet." Based on one of the greatest adventure stories ever told - Robert Louis Stevenson's "Treasure Island" - this film follows Jim's fantastic journey across a parallel universe as a cabin boy aboard a glittering space galleon.
Its a very underrated film.
The Plot: The legendary "loot of a thousand worlds" inspires an intergalactic treasure hunt when 15-year-old Jim Hawkins stumbles upon a map to the greatest pirate trove in the universe in Walt Disney Pictures' thrilling animated space adventure, "Treasure Planet." Based on one of the greatest adventure stories ever told - Robert Louis Stevenson's "Treasure Island" - this film follows Jim's fantastic journey across a parallel universe as a cabin boy aboard a glittering space galleon.
Its a very underrated film.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? There is always a purpose and a message the film-maker’s have manufactured and edited to suit themselves, I find. They often leave you with more questions than answers. The best ones are open to interpretation enough to allow you in; allowing the source material to speak for itself. The worst ones rely on talking heads too much and can feel very manipulative.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Aug 2, 2019 (Updated Aug 2, 2019)
"Gorgeously Pointless" sums this up for me. In general I find the Disney live action remakes pretty pointless. Why try, other than to fill Disney coffers? (Which I guess is the producer’s point!) And my opinion hasn’t changed after this. I still think its a rather pointless exercise, particularly in this case where there is no human cast.
With these things, I always think of Jim Carrey‘s cry at the end of his version of “I am the Walrus”. He screams “There, I did it. I defiled a timeless piece of art”. Jon Favreau can at least sleep happy (sic) in his bed content that he hasn’t managed to do that. I can’t say I was horrified by this one, because I wasn’t. It was majestic, entertaining, technically superb and certainly had its moments.
The acid test for me would be “would I go and see that again”. And in this case the answer would be “yes”.
For my full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/08/02/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-lion-king-2019/.
With these things, I always think of Jim Carrey‘s cry at the end of his version of “I am the Walrus”. He screams “There, I did it. I defiled a timeless piece of art”. Jon Favreau can at least sleep happy (sic) in his bed content that he hasn’t managed to do that. I can’t say I was horrified by this one, because I wasn’t. It was majestic, entertaining, technically superb and certainly had its moments.
The acid test for me would be “would I go and see that again”. And in this case the answer would be “yes”.
For my full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/08/02/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-lion-king-2019/.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Wintersong in Books
Dec 27, 2018
So I knew this was inspired by Jim Henson's Labyrinth. That's partially why I picked it up, as I love that movie and David Bowie as the Goblin King. I didn't expect to get, basically, Labyrinth fanfiction. That was my first impression. As the book carries on, though, and especially as you get into the second book, it's more like a musician's fever-dream of their favorite childhood movie. There are so many elements taken from the movie, but they are deconstructed and put back together in such unexpected ways.
You'll recognize a line or two from the movie. The fairies still bite. The Goblin King is still beautiful and angular and strange. Liesl's after a stolen sibling. But Liesl and her family live in rural, probably 18th century Bavaria. She is not a spoiled, baby-sitting half-sister. Her grandmother has taught her the old stories, and unbeknownst to her, she's played music for The Goblin King her entire childhood.
The first book concerns Liesl's first foray into the Underground to save her sister when The Goblin King steals her to be his bride. This is where the acid trip starts. If you're familiar with Labyrinth, remember the ballroom scene? With people whirling about and appearing and disappearing and mirrors and the sense of disorientation as it all falls apart? Yeah, that's basically the entire time in the Underground. Though there is a ball scene, and it is especially trippy.
While Liesl manages to save her sister (that's a spoiler, but it isn't much of one), she has a harder time saving herself. Whether she actually does or not could be debated.
The second book of the duology, Shadowsong, has an interesting author's note in the front of it. The author first gives a content warning for self-harm, suicidal ideations, addiction, and reckless behaviors. She goes on to say Liesl has bipolar disorder, and further, that so does she. (The author.) She says Wintersong was her bright mirror, and Shadowsong her dark one. I can see that. Wintersong is a much happier book than Shadowsong, but the story would be incomplete without both books. Wintersong does end in a satisfactory conclusion, but Shadowsong just completes the tale in a way that I, at least, really enjoyed.
Shadowsong also contains more throwbacks to the movie - she falls and is caught by goblin hands; goblins form a giant face that talks to her about the old laws. These things don't happen in the same scene, though.
I loved the elements of music woven throughout the story; Liesl is a composer, and music - her music - is almost a character in its own right. It's definitely a huge plot element. It's in her connection to her brother, and her connection to The Goblin King. It's her way into the Underground, and her way out, and her way to reach back in.
It's an enchanting duology; I don't know if it would be as good for someone who didn't love Labyrinth the way I do. If you dislike the movie, I would probably advise against reading these. But if you like it or have simply never seen it, these would be good, atmospheric books to read in the dead of winter.
You can read all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
You'll recognize a line or two from the movie. The fairies still bite. The Goblin King is still beautiful and angular and strange. Liesl's after a stolen sibling. But Liesl and her family live in rural, probably 18th century Bavaria. She is not a spoiled, baby-sitting half-sister. Her grandmother has taught her the old stories, and unbeknownst to her, she's played music for The Goblin King her entire childhood.
The first book concerns Liesl's first foray into the Underground to save her sister when The Goblin King steals her to be his bride. This is where the acid trip starts. If you're familiar with Labyrinth, remember the ballroom scene? With people whirling about and appearing and disappearing and mirrors and the sense of disorientation as it all falls apart? Yeah, that's basically the entire time in the Underground. Though there is a ball scene, and it is especially trippy.
While Liesl manages to save her sister (that's a spoiler, but it isn't much of one), she has a harder time saving herself. Whether she actually does or not could be debated.
The second book of the duology, Shadowsong, has an interesting author's note in the front of it. The author first gives a content warning for self-harm, suicidal ideations, addiction, and reckless behaviors. She goes on to say Liesl has bipolar disorder, and further, that so does she. (The author.) She says Wintersong was her bright mirror, and Shadowsong her dark one. I can see that. Wintersong is a much happier book than Shadowsong, but the story would be incomplete without both books. Wintersong does end in a satisfactory conclusion, but Shadowsong just completes the tale in a way that I, at least, really enjoyed.
Shadowsong also contains more throwbacks to the movie - she falls and is caught by goblin hands; goblins form a giant face that talks to her about the old laws. These things don't happen in the same scene, though.
I loved the elements of music woven throughout the story; Liesl is a composer, and music - her music - is almost a character in its own right. It's definitely a huge plot element. It's in her connection to her brother, and her connection to The Goblin King. It's her way into the Underground, and her way out, and her way to reach back in.
It's an enchanting duology; I don't know if it would be as good for someone who didn't love Labyrinth the way I do. If you dislike the movie, I would probably advise against reading these. But if you like it or have simply never seen it, these would be good, atmospheric books to read in the dead of winter.
You can read all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Shadowsong (Wintersong #2) in Books
Dec 27, 2018
So I knew this was inspired by Jim Henson's Labyrinth. That's partially why I picked it up, as I love that movie and David Bowie as the Goblin King. I didn't expect to get, basically, Labyrinth fanfiction. That was my first impression. As the book carries on, though, and especially as you get into the second book, it's more like a musician's fever-dream of their favorite childhood movie. There are so many elements taken from the movie, but they are deconstructed and put back together in such unexpected ways.
You'll recognize a line or two from the movie. The fairies still bite. The Goblin King is still beautiful and angular and strange. Liesl's after a stolen sibling. But Liesl and her family live in rural, probably 18th century Bavaria. She is not a spoiled, baby-sitting half-sister. Her grandmother has taught her the old stories, and unbeknownst to her, she's played music for The Goblin King her entire childhood.
The first book concerns Liesl's first foray into the Underground to save her sister when The Goblin King steals her to be his bride. This is where the acid trip starts. If you're familiar with Labyrinth, remember the ballroom scene? With people whirling about and appearing and disappearing and mirrors and the sense of disorientation as it all falls apart? Yeah, that's basically the entire time in the Underground. Though there is a ball scene, and it is especially trippy.
While Liesl manages to save her sister (that's a spoiler, but it isn't much of one), she has a harder time saving herself. Whether she actually does or not could be debated.
The second book of the duology, Shadowsong, has an interesting author's note in the front of it. The author first gives a content warning for self-harm, suicidal ideations, addiction, and reckless behaviors. She goes on to say Liesl has bipolar disorder, and further, that so does she. (The author.) She says Wintersong was her bright mirror, and Shadowsong her dark one. I can see that. Wintersong is a much happier book than Shadowsong, but the story would be incomplete without both books. Wintersong does end in a satisfactory conclusion, but Shadowsong just completes the tale in a way that I, at least, really enjoyed.
Shadowsong also contains more throwbacks to the movie - she falls and is caught by goblin hands; goblins form a giant face that talks to her about the old laws. These things don't happen in the same scene, though.
I loved the elements of music woven throughout the story; Liesl is a composer, and music - her music - is almost a character in its own right. It's definitely a huge plot element. It's in her connection to her brother, and her connection to The Goblin King. It's her way into the Underground, and her way out, and her way to reach back in.
It's an enchanting duology; I don't know if it would be as good for someone who didn't love Labyrinth the way I do. If you dislike the movie, I would probably advise against reading these. But if you like it or have simply never seen it, these would be good, atmospheric books to read in the dead of winter.
You can read all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
You'll recognize a line or two from the movie. The fairies still bite. The Goblin King is still beautiful and angular and strange. Liesl's after a stolen sibling. But Liesl and her family live in rural, probably 18th century Bavaria. She is not a spoiled, baby-sitting half-sister. Her grandmother has taught her the old stories, and unbeknownst to her, she's played music for The Goblin King her entire childhood.
The first book concerns Liesl's first foray into the Underground to save her sister when The Goblin King steals her to be his bride. This is where the acid trip starts. If you're familiar with Labyrinth, remember the ballroom scene? With people whirling about and appearing and disappearing and mirrors and the sense of disorientation as it all falls apart? Yeah, that's basically the entire time in the Underground. Though there is a ball scene, and it is especially trippy.
While Liesl manages to save her sister (that's a spoiler, but it isn't much of one), she has a harder time saving herself. Whether she actually does or not could be debated.
The second book of the duology, Shadowsong, has an interesting author's note in the front of it. The author first gives a content warning for self-harm, suicidal ideations, addiction, and reckless behaviors. She goes on to say Liesl has bipolar disorder, and further, that so does she. (The author.) She says Wintersong was her bright mirror, and Shadowsong her dark one. I can see that. Wintersong is a much happier book than Shadowsong, but the story would be incomplete without both books. Wintersong does end in a satisfactory conclusion, but Shadowsong just completes the tale in a way that I, at least, really enjoyed.
Shadowsong also contains more throwbacks to the movie - she falls and is caught by goblin hands; goblins form a giant face that talks to her about the old laws. These things don't happen in the same scene, though.
I loved the elements of music woven throughout the story; Liesl is a composer, and music - her music - is almost a character in its own right. It's definitely a huge plot element. It's in her connection to her brother, and her connection to The Goblin King. It's her way into the Underground, and her way out, and her way to reach back in.
It's an enchanting duology; I don't know if it would be as good for someone who didn't love Labyrinth the way I do. If you dislike the movie, I would probably advise against reading these. But if you like it or have simply never seen it, these would be good, atmospheric books to read in the dead of winter.
You can read all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Feb 3, 2019
Wonderful, whimsical film for kids and adults alike
As I was perusing various "Top Films of 2018" lists, one surprising film kept showing up on these lists, so I thought I'd better check it out.
And I'm glad I did for PADDINGTON 2 is a charming family film that entranced me from beginning to end with wonderful performances and a charm and whimsy that hooked me from start to finish.
A follow-up to the moderate 2014 hit (based on the beloved children's books series) about a Peruvian bear that heads to 19th Century London seeking adventure - and finds a family - PADDINGTON 2 follows said Bear as he is caught up in a robbery and is mistakenly jailed for the crime. Can Paddington make friends with the burly inmates in the prison? Can the Brown family help find the true perpetrator of the crime and help spring Paddington? Can faith and love triumph in a time of skepticism and darkness?
It's a family film, what do you think?
The joy in this film is in the telling - and Paul King (returning as Director/Writer) does a wonderful job telling a joyous, family-friendly story without diving into sacrine-ness (is that a word? It is now) and schmaltz. He tells the story with a sly wink in his eye and dives deep into whimsical detail of late 19th century London - a London racing full throttle into the steam age. There is a light cyber-punk sensibility to the proceedings and this works wonderfully well.
As you would expect, King does a nice job getting the actors to click into the sensibilities and style of this film. Ben Wishaw is back as the voice of Paddington - and he is perfectly cast. Wishaw has a naivete and sense of wonder to his voice that serves the Paddington character well. Jim Broadbent, Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins and Julie Walters all reprise their roles - in winning fashion. But it is the newcomers that shine. Brendan Gleeson shows off some comic chops as main prison bad guy "Knuckles" McGinty who forms an unlikely friendship/partnership with Paddington and, especially Hugh Grant as vain, egotistical actor Phoenix Buchanan. I won't spoil the antics of Grant's character but I have a feeling that Mr. Grant had as much fun bringing this character to screen as I did watching him.
Two final things - the finale really works for me as King sets up each character's "special skill" at the beginning of the film that they will need to bring to bear (no pun intended) during the action at the end. To often, character's and character threads are set up at the beginning of a film only to be abandoned by the end, so it is satisfying to me when King sets up items at the beginning of this film and then PAYS THEM OFF at the end.
And, finally, STAY THROUGH THE CREDITS. There is a scene in the credits that is as good as anything that is in the film. I won't spoil the fun for you, but want you to know about this so you won't miss it.
A wonderful, whimsical, time at the movies. If you have kids (5,6,7 years old), this is a MUST SEE. For the rest of you, if you're looking for fun escape from the world, this film will do it.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I'm glad I did for PADDINGTON 2 is a charming family film that entranced me from beginning to end with wonderful performances and a charm and whimsy that hooked me from start to finish.
A follow-up to the moderate 2014 hit (based on the beloved children's books series) about a Peruvian bear that heads to 19th Century London seeking adventure - and finds a family - PADDINGTON 2 follows said Bear as he is caught up in a robbery and is mistakenly jailed for the crime. Can Paddington make friends with the burly inmates in the prison? Can the Brown family help find the true perpetrator of the crime and help spring Paddington? Can faith and love triumph in a time of skepticism and darkness?
It's a family film, what do you think?
The joy in this film is in the telling - and Paul King (returning as Director/Writer) does a wonderful job telling a joyous, family-friendly story without diving into sacrine-ness (is that a word? It is now) and schmaltz. He tells the story with a sly wink in his eye and dives deep into whimsical detail of late 19th century London - a London racing full throttle into the steam age. There is a light cyber-punk sensibility to the proceedings and this works wonderfully well.
As you would expect, King does a nice job getting the actors to click into the sensibilities and style of this film. Ben Wishaw is back as the voice of Paddington - and he is perfectly cast. Wishaw has a naivete and sense of wonder to his voice that serves the Paddington character well. Jim Broadbent, Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins and Julie Walters all reprise their roles - in winning fashion. But it is the newcomers that shine. Brendan Gleeson shows off some comic chops as main prison bad guy "Knuckles" McGinty who forms an unlikely friendship/partnership with Paddington and, especially Hugh Grant as vain, egotistical actor Phoenix Buchanan. I won't spoil the antics of Grant's character but I have a feeling that Mr. Grant had as much fun bringing this character to screen as I did watching him.
Two final things - the finale really works for me as King sets up each character's "special skill" at the beginning of the film that they will need to bring to bear (no pun intended) during the action at the end. To often, character's and character threads are set up at the beginning of a film only to be abandoned by the end, so it is satisfying to me when King sets up items at the beginning of this film and then PAYS THEM OFF at the end.
And, finally, STAY THROUGH THE CREDITS. There is a scene in the credits that is as good as anything that is in the film. I won't spoil the fun for you, but want you to know about this so you won't miss it.
A wonderful, whimsical, time at the movies. If you have kids (5,6,7 years old), this is a MUST SEE. For the rest of you, if you're looking for fun escape from the world, this film will do it.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Time: The Kalief Browder Story in TV
Sep 19, 2017
Bawled like like baby, heartwrenching, horrific and utterly disgusted
It's been a while since any TV series or film has affected me as much as the Kalief Browder story. I think it made me feel nauseous at one point. The level of hideous injustice Browder faced, more so the fact he was just a boy, is worse than most police corruption cases covered by the media.
An innocent boy was held without trial, without conviction for three years in one of the most notorious prisons (Rikers Prison) where he was beaten senselessly by correction officers and inmates alike. He was then held in solitary confinement for 322 days (UN calls 15 days a human rights violation), tortured, starved and attempted suicide. This is New York. This is the American justice system.
When he was eventually released his mental health suffered, and it just gets worse and worse. I won't say anymore before I burst into tears again.
There are some remarkable interviews in here with Kalief's family, who were torn to shreds, top speakers such as Attorney General Eric Holder, "The New Jim Crow" author Michelle Alexander, journalist Shaun King, and even Jay-Z and Rosie O'Donnell, who were close friends. The biggest take away is how broken the system is / intended racial segregation and how important it is for the civil rights movement to join forces with the greater American populace to stop further injustices.
Seriously keep the tissues at hand. This is a hundred times more disturbing than Making A Murderer and The Keepers.
An innocent boy was held without trial, without conviction for three years in one of the most notorious prisons (Rikers Prison) where he was beaten senselessly by correction officers and inmates alike. He was then held in solitary confinement for 322 days (UN calls 15 days a human rights violation), tortured, starved and attempted suicide. This is New York. This is the American justice system.
When he was eventually released his mental health suffered, and it just gets worse and worse. I won't say anymore before I burst into tears again.
There are some remarkable interviews in here with Kalief's family, who were torn to shreds, top speakers such as Attorney General Eric Holder, "The New Jim Crow" author Michelle Alexander, journalist Shaun King, and even Jay-Z and Rosie O'Donnell, who were close friends. The biggest take away is how broken the system is / intended racial segregation and how important it is for the civil rights movement to join forces with the greater American populace to stop further injustices.
Seriously keep the tissues at hand. This is a hundred times more disturbing than Making A Murderer and The Keepers.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated One Night in Miami (2020) in Movies
Apr 15, 2021
Keeps the audience at arms length
The issue when adapting a stage play to the screen is that, often times, the subject matter and style of the script does not lend itself to being “opened up”, what is powerful when sitting in a theater with the actors performing the piece in front of you can often times be seen as “flat” when it jumps to the screen.
Such is the case with ONE NIGHT IN MIAMI the Major Motion Picture Directorial debut of Oscar Winning Actress Regina King and based on the stage play by Kemp Powers. This film/play fictionalizes the true story of 4 powerful African American legends that meet up in a hotel room, one night in Miami.
And…this film feels like 4 people sitting in a hotel room talking - and that’s the problem with it. What should be powerful dialogue (and, I’m sure, IS powerful when seen live on stage) just doesn’t translate well enough on the screen, so the film just sits there demanding we pay attention, while not inviting us in to do so.
Since this is a story about 4 people sitting around talking, the acting needs to take center stage and hold our attention and, quite frankly, it just does not. Eli Goree as Cassius Clay, Aldis Hodge as Jim Brown and Leslie Odom, Jr. as Sam Cook are all “fine” in their roles, but they don’t rise above the script and direction. Odom gets an Oscar nod for his turn in this film, but I have to think that, maybe, it is as much for his turn in HAMILTON as it is in this film.
Only Kingsley Ben-Adir as Malcolm X shows a spark and draws an emotional response in this film and that might not be fair to the other actors for he has the flashier role with the most speeches.
The Direction by King and the Script by Kemp Powers (based on his stage play) has some moments, but never draws the audience in. It keeps everyone at arms length and doesn’t touch the soul.
The subject matter in this film is an important one, and depicts a pivotal time in American History, but other films do a better job of driving that point home by inviting the audience into the conversation.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with ONE NIGHT IN MIAMI the Major Motion Picture Directorial debut of Oscar Winning Actress Regina King and based on the stage play by Kemp Powers. This film/play fictionalizes the true story of 4 powerful African American legends that meet up in a hotel room, one night in Miami.
And…this film feels like 4 people sitting in a hotel room talking - and that’s the problem with it. What should be powerful dialogue (and, I’m sure, IS powerful when seen live on stage) just doesn’t translate well enough on the screen, so the film just sits there demanding we pay attention, while not inviting us in to do so.
Since this is a story about 4 people sitting around talking, the acting needs to take center stage and hold our attention and, quite frankly, it just does not. Eli Goree as Cassius Clay, Aldis Hodge as Jim Brown and Leslie Odom, Jr. as Sam Cook are all “fine” in their roles, but they don’t rise above the script and direction. Odom gets an Oscar nod for his turn in this film, but I have to think that, maybe, it is as much for his turn in HAMILTON as it is in this film.
Only Kingsley Ben-Adir as Malcolm X shows a spark and draws an emotional response in this film and that might not be fair to the other actors for he has the flashier role with the most speeches.
The Direction by King and the Script by Kemp Powers (based on his stage play) has some moments, but never draws the audience in. It keeps everyone at arms length and doesn’t touch the soul.
The subject matter in this film is an important one, and depicts a pivotal time in American History, but other films do a better job of driving that point home by inviting the audience into the conversation.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Where the Wild Things Are (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Max is a boy who possesses something that fades away for most as they grow older and that's a young child's incredible imagination. His only dilemma is that he doesn't really have any friends of his own. He builds an igloo out of snow and tries to share it with his older sister, Claire, who seems more interested in hanging out with her friends. Max's mom embraces Max's imagination and even asks him to tell her stories, but everything falls apart when Max tries to save his mom a seat in the fort he just built that would save them from hot lava while she's on a date. Things quickly spiral out of control and Max winds up running away. He finds a boat by the water and takes it out into the sea. As he explores the open water, he becomes astray while he succumbs to the relentless weather and crashing waves of the ocean. That is until he stumbles upon an island where an incandescent glow of a small fire catches his eye. He finds that the island is inhabited by large, hairy, horned creatures. He's discovered where the wild things are and he will be their king.
This film is nothing short of amazing. As the film progressed, I found myself looking back on the memories of having the book read to me as a child. The film manages to capture the magic contained in the book and elaborate on it. The movie really made you feel like you were looking at the world through Max's eyes. It was almost like watching a world within a world. I found myself overcome with emotion by the time those credits showed up on the big screen. That's a special experience in itself.
Just about every aspect of the film is enjoyable. They really did a fantastic job stretching a ten sentence story into an hour and a half film. The writing is fairly superb as the pacing really flows once the ball gets rolling and the dialogue seems like it's straight out of the mind of a young boy. Max Records couldn't fit the Max role more perfectly. His range of emotion and the way he's able to have that look of innocence in his eyes is spectacular. Every action that Max made just felt so heartfelt.
The wild things are what really steal the show. The way they were pulled off just makes them look so realistic. Jim Henson's Creature Shop did a really phenomenal job on them. Despite the wild things being unhappy the majority of the film, it's really just a joy to watch them walk, move, talk, or smile.
As extravagant and imaginative as the film is, it did seem to have one flaw. The beginning of the film seemed to drag a bit. Everything leading up to Max finding the wild things just seemed to last a little too long. I realize they did all that they could with the source material and their efforts are extraordinary given how short that material is, but from a film critic's standpoint the beginning of the film dragged slightly.
Where the Wild Things Are is one of the most heartwarming and whimsical experiences at the theater I've ever had the pleasure of sitting through. If you read the book when you were younger, then this film will really hit home. You won't want it to end. You'll want King Max and the wild things to continue sleeping in a pile, having wild rumpuses, engaging in wars, building those glorious forts, and having Max stay there forever. I highly recommend seeing this wonderful film.
This film is nothing short of amazing. As the film progressed, I found myself looking back on the memories of having the book read to me as a child. The film manages to capture the magic contained in the book and elaborate on it. The movie really made you feel like you were looking at the world through Max's eyes. It was almost like watching a world within a world. I found myself overcome with emotion by the time those credits showed up on the big screen. That's a special experience in itself.
Just about every aspect of the film is enjoyable. They really did a fantastic job stretching a ten sentence story into an hour and a half film. The writing is fairly superb as the pacing really flows once the ball gets rolling and the dialogue seems like it's straight out of the mind of a young boy. Max Records couldn't fit the Max role more perfectly. His range of emotion and the way he's able to have that look of innocence in his eyes is spectacular. Every action that Max made just felt so heartfelt.
The wild things are what really steal the show. The way they were pulled off just makes them look so realistic. Jim Henson's Creature Shop did a really phenomenal job on them. Despite the wild things being unhappy the majority of the film, it's really just a joy to watch them walk, move, talk, or smile.
As extravagant and imaginative as the film is, it did seem to have one flaw. The beginning of the film seemed to drag a bit. Everything leading up to Max finding the wild things just seemed to last a little too long. I realize they did all that they could with the source material and their efforts are extraordinary given how short that material is, but from a film critic's standpoint the beginning of the film dragged slightly.
Where the Wild Things Are is one of the most heartwarming and whimsical experiences at the theater I've ever had the pleasure of sitting through. If you read the book when you were younger, then this film will really hit home. You won't want it to end. You'll want King Max and the wild things to continue sleeping in a pile, having wild rumpuses, engaging in wars, building those glorious forts, and having Max stay there forever. I highly recommend seeing this wonderful film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.