Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Nov 15, 2018
Master Director working some Masterful Camerawork
For my next deep dive into a film of the "Master of Suspense", Alfred Hitchock, I thought I'd pull out a "one-trick pony" film of his, 1948's ROPE. Based on a stage play, HItchock decided to film this movie as it were a play - keeping the entire film in one location (an apartment) and to film it in (what appears to be) one long take.
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
The film starts off with a murder, we see two young men (John Dall and Farley Granger) strangling their "inferior" friend. They then decide to hold a dinner party to see if anyone can tell that they have committed murder. Included in this party is the dead friend's girlfriend (Joan Chandler), his father (Sir Cedrick Hardwicke) and their old school teacher (James Stewart).
The fun of this film isn't "will they get caught", it's "how will they get caught - and by who". The cast is wonderful (especially Hardwicke) but they all take a back seat to the absolute stellar performance of Stewart who begins to piece together that something is amiss and turns the tide on the two murderers.
The real star of this film is Director HItchock and his camera. Since he decided to make this in one long take, it took a master of organization and logistics to pull this off, having stagehands move furniture and walls out of the way (and back in again) as the camera moved around. In 1948, a camera could only hold 10 minutes worth of film, so the "one long take" aspect of this is a trick, as it is really 8 takes with strategic timing of camera movements behind walls and backs to give the illusion of seamlessness.
The interesting thing of this "trick" is that you are totally at the control of what Hitchock wants you to see (and not see). There is a scene about 1/2 way through the film that completely ignores the action and the people in the scene and focuses on the trunk the body is in. It is a masterwork, and the tension of keeping your focus there throughout the course of this part of the film is scary, tense and mesmerizing.
One last thing, Hitchock makes a cameo in every one of his films. Try to tell where Hitch is in this film (and, no, it is not as someone walking by the apartment at the beginning of the movie).
Not one of Hitchock's best, plotwise, but one of his best, camera-wise. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
The film starts off with a murder, we see two young men (John Dall and Farley Granger) strangling their "inferior" friend. They then decide to hold a dinner party to see if anyone can tell that they have committed murder. Included in this party is the dead friend's girlfriend (Joan Chandler), his father (Sir Cedrick Hardwicke) and their old school teacher (James Stewart).
The fun of this film isn't "will they get caught", it's "how will they get caught - and by who". The cast is wonderful (especially Hardwicke) but they all take a back seat to the absolute stellar performance of Stewart who begins to piece together that something is amiss and turns the tide on the two murderers.
The real star of this film is Director HItchock and his camera. Since he decided to make this in one long take, it took a master of organization and logistics to pull this off, having stagehands move furniture and walls out of the way (and back in again) as the camera moved around. In 1948, a camera could only hold 10 minutes worth of film, so the "one long take" aspect of this is a trick, as it is really 8 takes with strategic timing of camera movements behind walls and backs to give the illusion of seamlessness.
The interesting thing of this "trick" is that you are totally at the control of what Hitchock wants you to see (and not see). There is a scene about 1/2 way through the film that completely ignores the action and the people in the scene and focuses on the trunk the body is in. It is a masterwork, and the tension of keeping your focus there throughout the course of this part of the film is scary, tense and mesmerizing.
One last thing, Hitchock makes a cameo in every one of his films. Try to tell where Hitch is in this film (and, no, it is not as someone walking by the apartment at the beginning of the movie).
Not one of Hitchock's best, plotwise, but one of his best, camera-wise. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Evan Almighty (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Evan Baxter (Steve Carell) is a man who is going places. When last we saw Evan in “Bruce Almighty”, he was playing the foil to Jim Carrey and having one of the most spectacular on air meltdowns ever recorded.
In the new film “Evan Almighty”, Evan has left his job as a Buffalo anchorman to take his place as a newly elected member of Congress. Evan ran under the campaign of “Change the World” and with his wife Joan (Lauren Graham), and their three sons, heads off to their new home in Virginia to embark on their new life.
Evan’s first day seems to be going well as he finds that he has been reassigned to a much larger office, and that he has been approached to co-sponsor a bill by prominent Congressman Long (John Goodman). This huge honor is not lost on Evan and he sets out to read the very long bill proposal at the sacrifice of a planned family outing. Needless to say this does not sit well with his children.
Evan’s life soon takes a series of unexpected turns when his alarm starts to go off at 6:14 every morning and mysterious shipments of wood and tools begin to arrive at his home. They are quickly dismissed as oddities, but even Evan has a hard time dismissing the arrival of a man who claims to be God (Morgan Freeman), who instructs Evan to build an Ark to prepare for a new flood.
Try as he might, Evan cannot avoid the facts as he soon finds himself followed by all manner of animals and growing a beard that will not go away, despite numerous shaves.
Those around Evan are convinced he is cracking from the stress of his new job, when he finally relents and begins to build the massive ark on lots adjoining his home. As the ark takes form, Evan begins to change and soon sports long hair and a beard and is clad in biblical robes.
This sudden transformation as well as his declaration before Congress and the television public that God has instructed him to build an Ark soon leads Evan to be barred from his duties in Congress, and a laughing stock to the nation.
Undaunted, Evan presses on, even though the strain is wearing on his family and friends as he is convinced he is doing the right thing.
What follows is a funny and touching adventure as Evan and company learn about priorities, life, and what truly matters in one of the most enjoyable family comedies in years.
The film works very well without being over the top or preachy in its messages. Carell once again shows why he is one of the funniest individuals in film and television.
Morgan Freeman is delightful as the almighty himself as he has a very smooth and compassionate style that helps him recapture the performance he did so well in the first film.
While not side-splitting funny, “Evan Almighty” has a lot going for it, and Carell and Freeman as well as the fine supporting cast keeps the film afloat.
In the new film “Evan Almighty”, Evan has left his job as a Buffalo anchorman to take his place as a newly elected member of Congress. Evan ran under the campaign of “Change the World” and with his wife Joan (Lauren Graham), and their three sons, heads off to their new home in Virginia to embark on their new life.
Evan’s first day seems to be going well as he finds that he has been reassigned to a much larger office, and that he has been approached to co-sponsor a bill by prominent Congressman Long (John Goodman). This huge honor is not lost on Evan and he sets out to read the very long bill proposal at the sacrifice of a planned family outing. Needless to say this does not sit well with his children.
Evan’s life soon takes a series of unexpected turns when his alarm starts to go off at 6:14 every morning and mysterious shipments of wood and tools begin to arrive at his home. They are quickly dismissed as oddities, but even Evan has a hard time dismissing the arrival of a man who claims to be God (Morgan Freeman), who instructs Evan to build an Ark to prepare for a new flood.
Try as he might, Evan cannot avoid the facts as he soon finds himself followed by all manner of animals and growing a beard that will not go away, despite numerous shaves.
Those around Evan are convinced he is cracking from the stress of his new job, when he finally relents and begins to build the massive ark on lots adjoining his home. As the ark takes form, Evan begins to change and soon sports long hair and a beard and is clad in biblical robes.
This sudden transformation as well as his declaration before Congress and the television public that God has instructed him to build an Ark soon leads Evan to be barred from his duties in Congress, and a laughing stock to the nation.
Undaunted, Evan presses on, even though the strain is wearing on his family and friends as he is convinced he is doing the right thing.
What follows is a funny and touching adventure as Evan and company learn about priorities, life, and what truly matters in one of the most enjoyable family comedies in years.
The film works very well without being over the top or preachy in its messages. Carell once again shows why he is one of the funniest individuals in film and television.
Morgan Freeman is delightful as the almighty himself as he has a very smooth and compassionate style that helps him recapture the performance he did so well in the first film.
While not side-splitting funny, “Evan Almighty” has a lot going for it, and Carell and Freeman as well as the fine supporting cast keeps the film afloat.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Wife (2017) in Movies
Feb 11, 2019
Well acted by Close AND Pryce
The buzz is getting louder and louder for Glenn Close, her Oscar chances and her work in Bjorn Runge's adaption of Meg Wolitzer's novel, THE WIFE. So, as an Oscar completest, I knew I needed to catch this film, and I'm glad I did.
But not for the performance we've all heard about.
Close stars as Joan Castleman the wife of Best-Selling Author Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce) who, early in the film, is notified that he has won the Pulitzer Prize for Literature. The film spans the time that the Castleman's head to Stockholm for the Pulitzer celebration and long held secrets come out.
Glenn Close will win the Best Lead Actress Oscar for her work as Joan Castleman, and it is a wonderful performance, not so much for what she says and does, but more so for what she doesn't say and reacts to. There is a lot of emotion and power going on in her facial and physical performance and she is, rightfully, being hailed for this work as the culmination of her career. And, make no mistake about it, her Oscar win will be a "Lifetime Achievement Award" capping Oscar, but as far as these types of Oscar awards go, this performance is deserving enough of the recognition, that if her lifetime of work is what lifts Close to this Oscar, I am fine with that.
What I am not fine with is the omission of Jonathan Pryce's performance at Awards time for portraying the author, Joe Castleman. It takes two to tango and Pryce and Close tango very well together. They spend 85% of the film on screen together and, while I stated that Close's performance was mostly reaction and facial, she had to react to something - and that something is Pryce. His author is pretentious, loud, self-serving and egotistical and is played strongly and surely by Pryce - never overplaying his hand to make his character a caricature, but trods the fine line between these two things well and is just as strong as Close in what, could be argued, is the lead role in this film (though, I get it, the movie is called THE WIFE not THE AUTHOR).
Also showing up in this film is Christian Slater as a would-be Biographer for Castleman, who threatens to expose the secret that this couple is sharing. I know Slater has been doing television (most notably MR. ROBOT) but his was a welcome presence and I would love to see more of him on the big screen.
It is good that the acting performances are so good in this film, for there really is not that much more to it. It is a slow, plodding, serious tome of a film, one that takes itself VERY seriously, so prepare yourself for that. This film could easily be converted into a stage play - and I would bet that it will be at some point. Fortunately, the run time if thee film is fairly short, 1 hour 40 minutes - but the pacing and the lingering shots on Close's facial expressions will make it seem closer to 2 hours. I'll let you decide whether or not it's a good thing.
Come to THE WIFE to catch Glenn Close's Oscar winning performance, but stay for Jonathan Pryce's under-rated, just as good performance.
Letter Grade: B (A for the acting, C for the pacing)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But not for the performance we've all heard about.
Close stars as Joan Castleman the wife of Best-Selling Author Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce) who, early in the film, is notified that he has won the Pulitzer Prize for Literature. The film spans the time that the Castleman's head to Stockholm for the Pulitzer celebration and long held secrets come out.
Glenn Close will win the Best Lead Actress Oscar for her work as Joan Castleman, and it is a wonderful performance, not so much for what she says and does, but more so for what she doesn't say and reacts to. There is a lot of emotion and power going on in her facial and physical performance and she is, rightfully, being hailed for this work as the culmination of her career. And, make no mistake about it, her Oscar win will be a "Lifetime Achievement Award" capping Oscar, but as far as these types of Oscar awards go, this performance is deserving enough of the recognition, that if her lifetime of work is what lifts Close to this Oscar, I am fine with that.
What I am not fine with is the omission of Jonathan Pryce's performance at Awards time for portraying the author, Joe Castleman. It takes two to tango and Pryce and Close tango very well together. They spend 85% of the film on screen together and, while I stated that Close's performance was mostly reaction and facial, she had to react to something - and that something is Pryce. His author is pretentious, loud, self-serving and egotistical and is played strongly and surely by Pryce - never overplaying his hand to make his character a caricature, but trods the fine line between these two things well and is just as strong as Close in what, could be argued, is the lead role in this film (though, I get it, the movie is called THE WIFE not THE AUTHOR).
Also showing up in this film is Christian Slater as a would-be Biographer for Castleman, who threatens to expose the secret that this couple is sharing. I know Slater has been doing television (most notably MR. ROBOT) but his was a welcome presence and I would love to see more of him on the big screen.
It is good that the acting performances are so good in this film, for there really is not that much more to it. It is a slow, plodding, serious tome of a film, one that takes itself VERY seriously, so prepare yourself for that. This film could easily be converted into a stage play - and I would bet that it will be at some point. Fortunately, the run time if thee film is fairly short, 1 hour 40 minutes - but the pacing and the lingering shots on Close's facial expressions will make it seem closer to 2 hours. I'll let you decide whether or not it's a good thing.
Come to THE WIFE to catch Glenn Close's Oscar winning performance, but stay for Jonathan Pryce's under-rated, just as good performance.
Letter Grade: B (A for the acting, C for the pacing)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The Perks of Being a Wallflower is based upon the best selling novel written by Stephen Chbosky and published in 1999. The film is directed by the author himself who makes the entire film follow the epistolary style novel very well. The film brings to light the struggles of an awkward adolescent boy named Charlie (Logan Lerman, Percy Jackson & the Olympians) and his struggles with trying to cope with the recent death of his best friend who has committed suicide and the not so recent death of his beloved aunt. While coping with both deaths Charlie also has to try his hardest to get through his first day of high school.
Charlie has a tough time making friends being shy and introverted. This definitely doesn’t help on his first day when the only friend he makes is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd, I Love You Man). Though in his shop class he notices one very outgoing yet somewhat flamboyant senior Patrick (Ezra Miller) who ends up taking Charlie under his wing and inducts him into “the island of misfit toys”. Charlie becomes enamored with a pixie haired beauty named Sam (Emma Watson, Harry Potter) who is Patrick’s step-sister. She is involved with a college boy but soon finds that the path she is on will soon lead down a different direction, possibly with Charlie. Though Charlie is a freshman and has never been able to feel close to anybody, his new group of friends become somewhat of a family and together they are able to overcome the struggles that adolescents are faced with today.
This film is full of great actors with appearances by Joan Cusack, Tom Savini and Nina Dobrev (The Vampire Diaries) and many others. The film hit kind of close to home as I, and many others, I’m sure, can relate to some of the same issues that had to be faced. That is why this is such a great film. I suppose that is why the story was so moving to me. I almost had a small case of anxiety remembering my high school days as a “wallflower” or a “misfit”. While the story is a roller coaster of emotions it is very well paced and has an amazing soundtrack that follows the story. The film will bring a lot of different emotions to the surface and will tug at the heartstrings which all great films must do. I usually take notes during a film that I am reviewing and at certain times I noticed myself not writing anything as I was entirely enthralled with the film. The acting is great and portrays all the characters of the story very well. This was a great film for Emma Watson to grow as more of a dramatic actress as apposed to her role as Hermione Granger though at times you could hear her British accent come through. This film is a must see! PG-13,103mins long.
Charlie has a tough time making friends being shy and introverted. This definitely doesn’t help on his first day when the only friend he makes is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd, I Love You Man). Though in his shop class he notices one very outgoing yet somewhat flamboyant senior Patrick (Ezra Miller) who ends up taking Charlie under his wing and inducts him into “the island of misfit toys”. Charlie becomes enamored with a pixie haired beauty named Sam (Emma Watson, Harry Potter) who is Patrick’s step-sister. She is involved with a college boy but soon finds that the path she is on will soon lead down a different direction, possibly with Charlie. Though Charlie is a freshman and has never been able to feel close to anybody, his new group of friends become somewhat of a family and together they are able to overcome the struggles that adolescents are faced with today.
This film is full of great actors with appearances by Joan Cusack, Tom Savini and Nina Dobrev (The Vampire Diaries) and many others. The film hit kind of close to home as I, and many others, I’m sure, can relate to some of the same issues that had to be faced. That is why this is such a great film. I suppose that is why the story was so moving to me. I almost had a small case of anxiety remembering my high school days as a “wallflower” or a “misfit”. While the story is a roller coaster of emotions it is very well paced and has an amazing soundtrack that follows the story. The film will bring a lot of different emotions to the surface and will tug at the heartstrings which all great films must do. I usually take notes during a film that I am reviewing and at certain times I noticed myself not writing anything as I was entirely enthralled with the film. The acting is great and portrays all the characters of the story very well. This was a great film for Emma Watson to grow as more of a dramatic actress as apposed to her role as Hermione Granger though at times you could hear her British accent come through. This film is a must see! PG-13,103mins long.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Mars Needs Moms (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Milo is your typical 9-year-old boy who doesn’t like doing chores, eating his vegetables or getting disciplined by his mother. But because his mother makes him do his chores and eat his vegetables and scolds him when he doesn’t, she’s made herself the prime target for Martians who need her great mothering skills. Apparently, Martians are “hatched” and raised by “nanny-bots” that are programmed with an Earthling mother’s caregiving and disciplinary abilities. Of course, not any Earthling mother will do. Bypassed are those who spoil their child or fail to care for their child’s safety and wellbeing. So when Milo is spied dutifully, albeit grudgingly, doing as he’s told by his mother, she becomes Mars’ candidate for abduction, because, as the movie title states, Mars needs moms.
On the night Milo’s mom is abducted, Milo (enacted by Seth Green, voiced by Seth Dusky) wakes up in time to witness her being loaded onto a spaceship and he quickly becomes a stowaway. On the red planet, he’s rescued by Gribbler, a chubby, fast-talking, tech-savvy human (voiced by Dan Fogler) who helps him devise a plan to save Milo’s mom, a recognizable Joan Cusack, in voice and, somewhat creepily, in CGI’d face. The two are up against an army of female Martians lead by The Supervisor (voiced by Mindy Sterling) a mean, old Martian. Think Frau Farbissina as a mean E.T. Luckily, Milo and Gribbler find an ally in a rebel Martian named Ki (voiced by Elisabeth Harnois). Milo has less than 6 hours to get to his mom before she’s programmed into the nanny-bots and destroyed by the process. Soon, it’s a race against time for Milo, Gribbler and Ki as they run around endless corridors, hurtle through chutes, tumble down trash mountains, splash into other-worldly caves and fall off cliffs.
Based on a children’s novel by cartoonist Berkeley Breathed, the film is produced by Robert Zemeckis and directed by Simon Wells in performance-capture 3D, a technique pioneered by Zemeckis in Polar Express and used again in A Christmas Carol. In performance-capture filming, actors are covered in sensors that capture their actions and expressions to animate their digital characters. During the end credits, a sampling of outtakes show the actors in their sensor suits physically acting out various scenes. I have to admit, the most entertaining part of the movie for me was watching Seth Green and Dan Fogler literally throw themselves into their characters.
Even with a run time of 88 minutes, kids around Milo’s age and younger may remain enthralled to the end simply from the countdown suspense. Older kids, maybe not. Yes, the high-point of the tale is Milo’s realization of how truly important his mom is to him. But even with all the running and tumbling around, the story takes a long, meandering walk to get to that point. While the technological achievements of 3D animation get more and more impressive, if the story doesn’t captivate or inspire, it’s practically a wasted effort, especially when watching in 2D would not take much away from the effects.
On the night Milo’s mom is abducted, Milo (enacted by Seth Green, voiced by Seth Dusky) wakes up in time to witness her being loaded onto a spaceship and he quickly becomes a stowaway. On the red planet, he’s rescued by Gribbler, a chubby, fast-talking, tech-savvy human (voiced by Dan Fogler) who helps him devise a plan to save Milo’s mom, a recognizable Joan Cusack, in voice and, somewhat creepily, in CGI’d face. The two are up against an army of female Martians lead by The Supervisor (voiced by Mindy Sterling) a mean, old Martian. Think Frau Farbissina as a mean E.T. Luckily, Milo and Gribbler find an ally in a rebel Martian named Ki (voiced by Elisabeth Harnois). Milo has less than 6 hours to get to his mom before she’s programmed into the nanny-bots and destroyed by the process. Soon, it’s a race against time for Milo, Gribbler and Ki as they run around endless corridors, hurtle through chutes, tumble down trash mountains, splash into other-worldly caves and fall off cliffs.
Based on a children’s novel by cartoonist Berkeley Breathed, the film is produced by Robert Zemeckis and directed by Simon Wells in performance-capture 3D, a technique pioneered by Zemeckis in Polar Express and used again in A Christmas Carol. In performance-capture filming, actors are covered in sensors that capture their actions and expressions to animate their digital characters. During the end credits, a sampling of outtakes show the actors in their sensor suits physically acting out various scenes. I have to admit, the most entertaining part of the movie for me was watching Seth Green and Dan Fogler literally throw themselves into their characters.
Even with a run time of 88 minutes, kids around Milo’s age and younger may remain enthralled to the end simply from the countdown suspense. Older kids, maybe not. Yes, the high-point of the tale is Milo’s realization of how truly important his mom is to him. But even with all the running and tumbling around, the story takes a long, meandering walk to get to that point. While the technological achievements of 3D animation get more and more impressive, if the story doesn’t captivate or inspire, it’s practically a wasted effort, especially when watching in 2D would not take much away from the effects.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.