Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated In Search of Darkness (2019) in Movies
Aug 12, 2020
In short, In Search of Darkness is a must watch for any horror fan.
It's 4+ hour runtime is a gushing love letter to 80s horror, covering the decade year by year, with interviews from an impressive cast of genre icons - John Carpenter, Larry Cohen, Joe Dante, Barbara Crampton, Doug Bradley, Tom Atkins, Lori Cardille, Nick Castle, Jeffrey Combs, Kane Hodder, Tom Holland, Heather Langenkamp, Don Mancini, Cassandra Peterson, Caroline Williams, Brian Yuzner, and many more!
The documentary doesn't break any new ground, truth be told, but it's hard to not to appreciate all of these films being covered in one place. The sheer amount of titles discussed is pretty vast.
It's put together nicely as well. Old grainy film trailers tend to set the tone of each entry, but all of the footage shown is crystal clear and HD. The graphics are eye catching, with classic one sheets on display throughout, and it's all set too a great synth soundtrack courtesy of Weary Pines.
Really worth checking out - I split my viewing over a few nights and was honestly gutted when I had none left to watch. Director David A. Weiner did a great job with this documentary, and has a second one coming next year entitled In Search of Tomorrow, focusing on the Sci-Fi films of the 80s, and I can't wait to see it!
It's 4+ hour runtime is a gushing love letter to 80s horror, covering the decade year by year, with interviews from an impressive cast of genre icons - John Carpenter, Larry Cohen, Joe Dante, Barbara Crampton, Doug Bradley, Tom Atkins, Lori Cardille, Nick Castle, Jeffrey Combs, Kane Hodder, Tom Holland, Heather Langenkamp, Don Mancini, Cassandra Peterson, Caroline Williams, Brian Yuzner, and many more!
The documentary doesn't break any new ground, truth be told, but it's hard to not to appreciate all of these films being covered in one place. The sheer amount of titles discussed is pretty vast.
It's put together nicely as well. Old grainy film trailers tend to set the tone of each entry, but all of the footage shown is crystal clear and HD. The graphics are eye catching, with classic one sheets on display throughout, and it's all set too a great synth soundtrack courtesy of Weary Pines.
Really worth checking out - I split my viewing over a few nights and was honestly gutted when I had none left to watch. Director David A. Weiner did a great job with this documentary, and has a second one coming next year entitled In Search of Tomorrow, focusing on the Sci-Fi films of the 80s, and I can't wait to see it!
Heathere' (25 KP) rated Busted Jukebox Volume 2 by Shovels & Rope in Music
Mar 17, 2018 (Updated Mar 17, 2018)
Shovels & Rope-Cover Songs
I don't usually like cover songs. I feel that if you are going to do a cover of someone's song, you should make it 'your own'. I love that Shovels & Rope made each track unique and had so many great singers help them out.
Tracks:
~Cleanup Hitter (feat. Brandi Carlile)
-original artist: Bill Carson
~Joey (feat. Nicole Atkins)
-original artist: Concrete Blonde
~Do You Love Me Now (feat. Rhett Miller)
-original artist: The Breeders
~Blue Eyes Crying In The Rain (feat. John Moreland)
-original artist: Willie Nelson
~Untitled 1 (feat. Matthew Logan Vasquez)
-original artist: Sigur Rós
~The Air That I Breathe (feat. Indianola)
-original artist: The Hollies
~I’m Your Man (feat. John Fullbright)
-original artist: Leonard Cohen
~Death Or Glory (feat. Hayes Carll)
-original artist: The Clash
~Epic (feat. Lera Lynn)
-original artist: Faith No More
~You Never Can Tell
-original artist: Chuck Berry
My favorite track is 'Blue Eyes Crying In The Rain'. I heard this song when I asked my Amazon Alexa to shuffle songs by Shovels & Rope. I put the song on repeat and purchased the album without hearing any of the other songs and I picked up Busted Jukebox Volume 1, as well. I'm a fan of Shovels & Rope and was surprised that I hadn't heard of these albums.
Blue Eyes Crying In The Rain, is a Willie Nelson song and this version, featuring John Moreland, is absolutely beautiful. My father, a Willie Nelson fan would have approved of this version. It's a song that makes it very hard to hold back the tears. If I'm being honest, I haven't been able to that, yet.
The most surprising track is Epic, a Faith No More song. It is so different from the original and I really like the different flow that Lera Lynn gave it. The song in it's cover form has given a slightly different meaning to the lyrics. The original was powerful and in your face while this version is powerful and haunting.
Other songs are originally by
I am so happy that I stumbled upon this and I can't wait to see what this amazing duo will bring us next!
Tracks:
~Cleanup Hitter (feat. Brandi Carlile)
-original artist: Bill Carson
~Joey (feat. Nicole Atkins)
-original artist: Concrete Blonde
~Do You Love Me Now (feat. Rhett Miller)
-original artist: The Breeders
~Blue Eyes Crying In The Rain (feat. John Moreland)
-original artist: Willie Nelson
~Untitled 1 (feat. Matthew Logan Vasquez)
-original artist: Sigur Rós
~The Air That I Breathe (feat. Indianola)
-original artist: The Hollies
~I’m Your Man (feat. John Fullbright)
-original artist: Leonard Cohen
~Death Or Glory (feat. Hayes Carll)
-original artist: The Clash
~Epic (feat. Lera Lynn)
-original artist: Faith No More
~You Never Can Tell
-original artist: Chuck Berry
My favorite track is 'Blue Eyes Crying In The Rain'. I heard this song when I asked my Amazon Alexa to shuffle songs by Shovels & Rope. I put the song on repeat and purchased the album without hearing any of the other songs and I picked up Busted Jukebox Volume 1, as well. I'm a fan of Shovels & Rope and was surprised that I hadn't heard of these albums.
Blue Eyes Crying In The Rain, is a Willie Nelson song and this version, featuring John Moreland, is absolutely beautiful. My father, a Willie Nelson fan would have approved of this version. It's a song that makes it very hard to hold back the tears. If I'm being honest, I haven't been able to that, yet.
The most surprising track is Epic, a Faith No More song. It is so different from the original and I really like the different flow that Lera Lynn gave it. The song in it's cover form has given a slightly different meaning to the lyrics. The original was powerful and in your face while this version is powerful and haunting.
Other songs are originally by
I am so happy that I stumbled upon this and I can't wait to see what this amazing duo will bring us next!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Holmes and Watson (2018) in Movies
Apr 27, 2020
They can't all be winners
Well...they can't all be winners.
I know that Will Ferrell is an "acquired taste" - either you like the "all in" comedy of this man, or you don't. I happen to like Ferrell, his comedy has aged on me like a fine wine. I find that some of his most recent films like THE OTHER GUYS and THE HOUSE are very funny (maybe not as funny as ANCHORMAN...but what is). I think this comedian still has his fastball.
But, sometimes, wine doesn't age well, it turns into vinegar. And for Ferrell, this vinegar is the comedic dud that is HOLMES & WATSON.
Partnering with familiar on-screen partner John C. Reilly (who paired with Ferrell in films like STEP BROTHERS and TALLEDEGA NIGHTS) this film is a parody of the multitude of Sherlock Holmes films - this time showing that not only is Holmes and idiot but so is Watson. But, somehow, they manage to solve the crime and save the day anyway.
Ferrell is (typically) over-the-top and obtuse as Holmes. Usually, this combination works for him (see ANCHORMAN) but it just falls flat here. Same thing for John C. Reilly's Watson - he is just as over-the-top and obtuse and (I think) that's the beginning of the problem here. The two just bounce off each other without the joke landing on either of them - nor does it land of the audience.
Ralph Fiennes (Moriarty), Rebecca Hall (potential girlfriend), Rob Brydon (Inspector Lestrade) and Kelly Macdonald (Mrs. Hudson) all fair poorly with poor material to work with.
Writer/Director Etan (that's Etan, not Ethan) Cohen (IDIOCRACY) does nothing to help things here with either his writing or his direction. My only thought here is that he thought that Ferrell and Reilly could improvise themselves into a good film.
It didn't happen.
Letter Grade: C (because I guffawed out loud - despite myself - a couple of times)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I know that Will Ferrell is an "acquired taste" - either you like the "all in" comedy of this man, or you don't. I happen to like Ferrell, his comedy has aged on me like a fine wine. I find that some of his most recent films like THE OTHER GUYS and THE HOUSE are very funny (maybe not as funny as ANCHORMAN...but what is). I think this comedian still has his fastball.
But, sometimes, wine doesn't age well, it turns into vinegar. And for Ferrell, this vinegar is the comedic dud that is HOLMES & WATSON.
Partnering with familiar on-screen partner John C. Reilly (who paired with Ferrell in films like STEP BROTHERS and TALLEDEGA NIGHTS) this film is a parody of the multitude of Sherlock Holmes films - this time showing that not only is Holmes and idiot but so is Watson. But, somehow, they manage to solve the crime and save the day anyway.
Ferrell is (typically) over-the-top and obtuse as Holmes. Usually, this combination works for him (see ANCHORMAN) but it just falls flat here. Same thing for John C. Reilly's Watson - he is just as over-the-top and obtuse and (I think) that's the beginning of the problem here. The two just bounce off each other without the joke landing on either of them - nor does it land of the audience.
Ralph Fiennes (Moriarty), Rebecca Hall (potential girlfriend), Rob Brydon (Inspector Lestrade) and Kelly Macdonald (Mrs. Hudson) all fair poorly with poor material to work with.
Writer/Director Etan (that's Etan, not Ethan) Cohen (IDIOCRACY) does nothing to help things here with either his writing or his direction. My only thought here is that he thought that Ferrell and Reilly could improvise themselves into a good film.
It didn't happen.
Letter Grade: C (because I guffawed out loud - despite myself - a couple of times)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
Tim Booth recommended Carrie and Lowell by Sufjan Stevens in Music (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Toy Story (1995) in Movies
Dec 16, 2018
Truly a classic
With Toy Story 4 coming out in theaters this summer, I thought I'd go back and check out a beloved classice - the original TOY STORY (1995) to see if this film holds up to my memory of it.
It sure does.
Directed by visionary Pixar founder John Lasseter, TOY STORY is the first computer generated full-length motion picture and tells the...story...of toys that come to life when the humans leave the room. It is a simple concept that is executed beautifully with wit, charm and heart that sustains to this day and (I would imagine) to infinity...and beyond.
Besides the revolutionary CGI work (which mostly holds up), the heartwarming story and the crispness of the pacing of the film, the masterstroke here is the pitch perfect voice casting. Tom Hanks was the first - and only - choice for Woody, the Cowboy doll that has been the main toy for Andy. His confidence is shattered when Andy receives a Buzz Lightyear action figure for his birthday and he struggles to maintain control of the room - and Andy's heart. In lesser hands, this character could be be annoying and a bit of a jerk, but with Hanks' inherent charm, Woody is lovable, neurotic and vulnerable as he tries to get out of one jam after another.
Tim Allen wasn't the first choice for the voice of Buzz Lightyear, but with his success in 1994's THE SANTA CLAUS he was called into service on this film - and the results couldn't be better. He blends machismo, bluster and a sincere earnestness that perfectly pairs and counterbalances Hanks' tics to form a movie duo that ranks right up there with the best in film history.
It is the attention to detail that these filmmakers really excel at and the supporting cast of voice actors really brings it here. From Don Rickles to John Ratzenberger to Annie Potts to R. Lee Emery to Jim Varney to Laurie Metcalf, all bring charm and heart to their characters even when they are in conflict.
Speaking of attention to detail, the CGI in this film works really, really well - even after 23 years of improvements. The filmmakers were blazing a trail and there is much to look at in the background, from the 2 "Hidden Mickey's" in Andy's room to the tribute to THE SHINING, the background and renderings are lush and are worth a viewing just to look at hidden gems (and Easter Eggs) in the background.
But none of this would matter if the story wasn't any good and I give story writers Lasseter and future Pixar Director's Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton credit for keeping the story crisp, clear and simple and infusing heart and sincerity without getting cloying or annoying. Interestingly enough, in looking at the credits, Joss Whedon, Joel Cohen and Alec Sokolow were all contributors to the screenplay as well. When I see that many writers on a screenplay, I worry about continuity and flow. But, make no mistake about it, this film has a strong vision driven by Lasseter and the results on the screen show that focus.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, give yourself a treat and check it out again, it holds up very, very well and will be well worth the 84 minutes it will take to watch it (the shortest of all PIXAR films).
Letter Grade A+ - which means, of course...
A rare 10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It sure does.
Directed by visionary Pixar founder John Lasseter, TOY STORY is the first computer generated full-length motion picture and tells the...story...of toys that come to life when the humans leave the room. It is a simple concept that is executed beautifully with wit, charm and heart that sustains to this day and (I would imagine) to infinity...and beyond.
Besides the revolutionary CGI work (which mostly holds up), the heartwarming story and the crispness of the pacing of the film, the masterstroke here is the pitch perfect voice casting. Tom Hanks was the first - and only - choice for Woody, the Cowboy doll that has been the main toy for Andy. His confidence is shattered when Andy receives a Buzz Lightyear action figure for his birthday and he struggles to maintain control of the room - and Andy's heart. In lesser hands, this character could be be annoying and a bit of a jerk, but with Hanks' inherent charm, Woody is lovable, neurotic and vulnerable as he tries to get out of one jam after another.
Tim Allen wasn't the first choice for the voice of Buzz Lightyear, but with his success in 1994's THE SANTA CLAUS he was called into service on this film - and the results couldn't be better. He blends machismo, bluster and a sincere earnestness that perfectly pairs and counterbalances Hanks' tics to form a movie duo that ranks right up there with the best in film history.
It is the attention to detail that these filmmakers really excel at and the supporting cast of voice actors really brings it here. From Don Rickles to John Ratzenberger to Annie Potts to R. Lee Emery to Jim Varney to Laurie Metcalf, all bring charm and heart to their characters even when they are in conflict.
Speaking of attention to detail, the CGI in this film works really, really well - even after 23 years of improvements. The filmmakers were blazing a trail and there is much to look at in the background, from the 2 "Hidden Mickey's" in Andy's room to the tribute to THE SHINING, the background and renderings are lush and are worth a viewing just to look at hidden gems (and Easter Eggs) in the background.
But none of this would matter if the story wasn't any good and I give story writers Lasseter and future Pixar Director's Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton credit for keeping the story crisp, clear and simple and infusing heart and sincerity without getting cloying or annoying. Interestingly enough, in looking at the credits, Joss Whedon, Joel Cohen and Alec Sokolow were all contributors to the screenplay as well. When I see that many writers on a screenplay, I worry about continuity and flow. But, make no mistake about it, this film has a strong vision driven by Lasseter and the results on the screen show that focus.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, give yourself a treat and check it out again, it holds up very, very well and will be well worth the 84 minutes it will take to watch it (the shortest of all PIXAR films).
Letter Grade A+ - which means, of course...
A rare 10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Mar 28, 2021
Strong Ensemble Work
The good thing about my yearly exercise to check out all of the Oscar Nominated films in the "Major" Categories is that it forces me to watch films that are "one my list" but I just haven't gotten to them. THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is one of those types of films - an Aaron Sorkin Written and Directed project with a stellar cast about an important moment in United States History.
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 1, 2019
Cracks Me Up
Growing up, I never really understood British humor. There is a bit of a bite to it, dry wit that I didn’t really get as a kid. The older I get, the more I appreciate and love it. Monty Python’s Life of Brian is a the perfect example of British humor at its finest. Set in 33 A.D., it follows the story of Brian Cohen who is mistaken for the Messiah and worshipped at every turn.
Acting: 10
One of the things I love about the Python movies is the fact that no character is restricted to one mere role. John Cleese, for example, is listed as a Wise Man, Centurion, and Official. Not only does he play three parts, but he is hilarious in every single role he owns. He has a way of trying to be serious but making you laugh anyway. Same thing with the likes of Terry Gilliam who plays Man Even Further Forward, Revolutionary, and Jailer to name just a handful of his roles. For all of the many hats the characters wear, they maintain a natural chemistry that makes their roles and timing perfect.
Beginning: 10
Hands-down, one of the best beginnings I’ve ever seen in a movie period. It’s a comedic spin on the birth of Jesus featuring the Three Wisemen showing up at the wrong manger. The scene sets up the entire film perfectly in all of its hilarity. By the time you’ve laughed through this, you’re ready to laugh more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 7
While Life of Brian is definitely a light-hearted affair, there is enough consistent conflict to keep the story moving. The story runs parallel to that of Jesus, right up to the crucifixion. Just like Jesus, Brian finds himself constantly in different bad situations, most of which he hasn’t prepared for. The film, of course, takes these situations, and makes each of them hilarious.
Genre: 8
A high-quality comedy that holds up even today. It makes you laugh from beginning to end and excels in originality. Definitely bordering along the lines of classic status.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 85
The misunderstanding of Brian as the savior is the key that makes the whole thing work. Monty Python’s Life of Brian works on a number of different levels and is sure to appeal to most, even Christians. If you have a sense of humor, that is.
Acting: 10
One of the things I love about the Python movies is the fact that no character is restricted to one mere role. John Cleese, for example, is listed as a Wise Man, Centurion, and Official. Not only does he play three parts, but he is hilarious in every single role he owns. He has a way of trying to be serious but making you laugh anyway. Same thing with the likes of Terry Gilliam who plays Man Even Further Forward, Revolutionary, and Jailer to name just a handful of his roles. For all of the many hats the characters wear, they maintain a natural chemistry that makes their roles and timing perfect.
Beginning: 10
Hands-down, one of the best beginnings I’ve ever seen in a movie period. It’s a comedic spin on the birth of Jesus featuring the Three Wisemen showing up at the wrong manger. The scene sets up the entire film perfectly in all of its hilarity. By the time you’ve laughed through this, you’re ready to laugh more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 7
While Life of Brian is definitely a light-hearted affair, there is enough consistent conflict to keep the story moving. The story runs parallel to that of Jesus, right up to the crucifixion. Just like Jesus, Brian finds himself constantly in different bad situations, most of which he hasn’t prepared for. The film, of course, takes these situations, and makes each of them hilarious.
Genre: 8
A high-quality comedy that holds up even today. It makes you laugh from beginning to end and excels in originality. Definitely bordering along the lines of classic status.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 85
The misunderstanding of Brian as the savior is the key that makes the whole thing work. Monty Python’s Life of Brian works on a number of different levels and is sure to appeal to most, even Christians. If you have a sense of humor, that is.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Mile 22 (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
The Movie Equivelant of a Shrug
I saw Mile 22 last night and when I got in my dad asked me how it was. I replied with a simple shrug and that is honestly the best way to sum up this movie. It's not bad and it's not great. The worst thing about that is that Peter Berg and Mark Wahlberg have worked together 3 times prior to this movie and all 3 times have resulted in fantastic movies, not mediocre ones like this. I was looking forward to this going in knowing that it was Berg and Wahlberg working together again and I have really liked everything else they have made together, (especially Patriot's Day,) but this is unfortunately the worst film that they have made together so far, but it's still not awful.
The best thing about this film is definitely Iko Uwais. Whenever we get to see him doing his thing on screen, it is electrifying. The issue here though is the way that Jacques Jouffret decided to shoot these sequences is choppy and incoherent at times. Why would you cast one of the best fight choreographers in the world in your movie and then every time he get to fight onscreen, you decided to shake the camera about and make 10+ jump-cuts in the space of a few minutes?
Rhonda Rousey is in the movie too and surprisingly I didn't cringe every time she spoke and instead felt that she did a pretty decent job with what she was given. Lauren Cohen was fine too, we all know that she can do a pretty solid American accent at this point because of her work on The Walking Dead. Wahlberg is perfectly serviceable here too, he has been better in other things, but he also been far worse. It is hard to waste an actor like John Malkovich in a film and yet they manage it here, literally any actor could have played his role.
The end is also pretty rubbish. There is a flimsy twist followed by a sequel tease and then the credits abruptly appear. They are clearly aiming for a sequel, but it would have been nice if they could have tied this movie up a bit better first.
Overall, this is an okay action flick with some cool stunts that doesn't live up to what it could have been and ends too abruptly. There are some cool stunts and satisfying kills in the film, but they could have been shot a lot better.
The best thing about this film is definitely Iko Uwais. Whenever we get to see him doing his thing on screen, it is electrifying. The issue here though is the way that Jacques Jouffret decided to shoot these sequences is choppy and incoherent at times. Why would you cast one of the best fight choreographers in the world in your movie and then every time he get to fight onscreen, you decided to shake the camera about and make 10+ jump-cuts in the space of a few minutes?
Rhonda Rousey is in the movie too and surprisingly I didn't cringe every time she spoke and instead felt that she did a pretty decent job with what she was given. Lauren Cohen was fine too, we all know that she can do a pretty solid American accent at this point because of her work on The Walking Dead. Wahlberg is perfectly serviceable here too, he has been better in other things, but he also been far worse. It is hard to waste an actor like John Malkovich in a film and yet they manage it here, literally any actor could have played his role.
The end is also pretty rubbish. There is a flimsy twist followed by a sequel tease and then the credits abruptly appear. They are clearly aiming for a sequel, but it would have been nice if they could have tied this movie up a bit better first.
Overall, this is an okay action flick with some cool stunts that doesn't live up to what it could have been and ends too abruptly. There are some cool stunts and satisfying kills in the film, but they could have been shot a lot better.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
How many of these reviews are going to start with “Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?” A lot I am willing to bet. The thing is, it’s a good way to start. Bohemian Rhapsody has been a highly anticipated film for many years. I remember back when they were considering Johnny Depp for Freddie Mercury. Then it was Sasha Baren Cohen. And then they announced Rami Malek, and a majority of the country went, “Who?” Rami Malek is mostly known for his work as the lead in the USA Network series Mr. Robot. He got his start in the Night at the Museum series, and has scene big screen time in Need for Speed and, most recently, Papillion alongside Charlie Hunnam. I think it’s safe to say that after November 2, 2018, people will definitely know who he is.
Named for Queen’s most successful song in their portfolio, Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of Freddie Mercury and how he rose from being a baggage boy at Heathrow, to a literal rock legend. We see how the band Queen was formed, how they got their name, how they made it big, and what made Queen… well Queen. Rami Malek delivers a powerful performance as the front man of the legendary band. For me, it started off a little shaky at first (coming from someone who is fan of Malek), but he quickly made the role his own and personified the late Mercury like no other can. Even Mercury’s own sister saw Malek in full costume and said, “There’s my Freddie.”
Not to downplay the rest of the cast. Rounding at the rest of the band is Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon, Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All delivered powerful performances in their own right, and the chemistry between the 4 actors is undeniable. Veterans Aidan Gillen (as John Reid) and Tom Hollander (Jim Beach) deliver in their supporting roles, as does Lucy Boynton, who played Mary Austin. If some of these names do not seem familiar, get ready to learn a lot of the background of Queen in their rise, fall, and then rise again. Also, Mike Myers makes an appearance for a fun cameo as Ray Foster.
Clearly a majority of the film’s score revolves around the band’s expansive portfolio. But it wasn’t just the in your face, obvious music that was there. They did a great job with subtle melodies or bars from the band’s repertoire hanging in the background of impactful scenes throughout the film. Sometimes you’ll miss it, sometimes it’s obvious, and sometimes it might just make you cry.
The story begins with Mercury meeting Taylor and May, and ends with the ever-famous Live-Aid in 1985. While the film is essentially a love-story dedicated to Mercury, I feel it may have left out the rest of the members of the band. We see May, Taylor and Deacon, but we know little about their outside lives other than fleeting statements about their wives and kids, and what they were studying in university prior to Queen taking off. It’s a shame because Queen was not just about Mercury. The film did a really good job stating this, showing how they all contribute, all support each other, and how they are all different. But the focus is still on one man. Queen, the rock band, is an entity. Not an individual. But, I understand the decision behind the path that was chosen. Mercury, to many, was the embodiment of Queen. I am just glad the movie did put out there that he didn’t feel that way.
All of that aside, this film was fantastic. I have been a fan of Queen since I was in diapers, despite a majority of the band’s career having taken place before I was born. It was good to see this story told on screen, though slightly dramatized at points. It was an excellent telling of the story, and people may learn a lot about Freddie Mercury, like his love of cats, and who the love of his life is. Unless you’re absolutely cold-hearted, expect to get goosebumps as you progress through the band’s rise to the top, and to laugh as you how they interacted and developed their music. The movie is not without flaws, but they are so minor that looking past them is easy. Enjoy the film. Enjoy the music. Rock on.
Named for Queen’s most successful song in their portfolio, Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of Freddie Mercury and how he rose from being a baggage boy at Heathrow, to a literal rock legend. We see how the band Queen was formed, how they got their name, how they made it big, and what made Queen… well Queen. Rami Malek delivers a powerful performance as the front man of the legendary band. For me, it started off a little shaky at first (coming from someone who is fan of Malek), but he quickly made the role his own and personified the late Mercury like no other can. Even Mercury’s own sister saw Malek in full costume and said, “There’s my Freddie.”
Not to downplay the rest of the cast. Rounding at the rest of the band is Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon, Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All delivered powerful performances in their own right, and the chemistry between the 4 actors is undeniable. Veterans Aidan Gillen (as John Reid) and Tom Hollander (Jim Beach) deliver in their supporting roles, as does Lucy Boynton, who played Mary Austin. If some of these names do not seem familiar, get ready to learn a lot of the background of Queen in their rise, fall, and then rise again. Also, Mike Myers makes an appearance for a fun cameo as Ray Foster.
Clearly a majority of the film’s score revolves around the band’s expansive portfolio. But it wasn’t just the in your face, obvious music that was there. They did a great job with subtle melodies or bars from the band’s repertoire hanging in the background of impactful scenes throughout the film. Sometimes you’ll miss it, sometimes it’s obvious, and sometimes it might just make you cry.
The story begins with Mercury meeting Taylor and May, and ends with the ever-famous Live-Aid in 1985. While the film is essentially a love-story dedicated to Mercury, I feel it may have left out the rest of the members of the band. We see May, Taylor and Deacon, but we know little about their outside lives other than fleeting statements about their wives and kids, and what they were studying in university prior to Queen taking off. It’s a shame because Queen was not just about Mercury. The film did a really good job stating this, showing how they all contribute, all support each other, and how they are all different. But the focus is still on one man. Queen, the rock band, is an entity. Not an individual. But, I understand the decision behind the path that was chosen. Mercury, to many, was the embodiment of Queen. I am just glad the movie did put out there that he didn’t feel that way.
All of that aside, this film was fantastic. I have been a fan of Queen since I was in diapers, despite a majority of the band’s career having taken place before I was born. It was good to see this story told on screen, though slightly dramatized at points. It was an excellent telling of the story, and people may learn a lot about Freddie Mercury, like his love of cats, and who the love of his life is. Unless you’re absolutely cold-hearted, expect to get goosebumps as you progress through the band’s rise to the top, and to laugh as you how they interacted and developed their music. The movie is not without flaws, but they are so minor that looking past them is easy. Enjoy the film. Enjoy the music. Rock on.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) Aug 12, 2020