Search

Search only in certain items:

Barton Fink (1991)
Barton Fink (1991)
1991 | Comedy, Drama
Verdict: Coen’s at Their Best

Story: Barton Fink starts as New York playwright Barton Fink (Turturro) whose latest play has seen him get the most praise. Barton gets encouraged to head to California to write movies, which would cover him for years to come on the stages of New York. Barton put up in a small hotel, gets given his first assignment, a wrestling picture, something he knows nothing about.
Barton bonds with his insurance salesman neighbour Charlie Meadows (Goodman) who always seems to have inspiration for this story, while meeting authors he idolises, waiting for his big break in the industry, meeting different producers who shows him the hellish process Hollywood can be.

Thoughts on Barton Fink

Characters – Barton Fink is the latest praised playwright in New York, he knows he can be a success on the stage only he gets encouraged to head to the Hollywood boom to make serious money with his writing skills. Barton learns quickly that he isn’t prepared for the demands of writing script especially when he doesn’t know the material they want him to write about, he struggles to settle in the area and the cheap hotel they put him up in, he only makes one friend and sees how the people in the industry always say what you want to say. Charlie Meadows is the hotel neighbour and insurance salesman that befriends Barton, the two often spend the nights talking about life’s events, while Charlie pushes Barton to become more confident. Audrey Taylor is the wife of one of the most famous authors Barton meets, he wants to use her as his muse after seeing how badly she is abused by her partner. Jack Lipnick is the producer that hires Barton, he demands the work and unlike most writers that he hires, he keeps up on Barton’s work.
Performances – John Turturro in the leading role is excellent, we can see him unravelling at the seams as he starts to lose his mind in the writing process. John Goodman is wonderful too as the friendly neighbour with a secret behind his kind-nature. When it comes to the rest of the cast we get some wonderful performance that send us into the era perfectly.
Story – The story here sees a playwright trying his hand at writing movies in the booming industry, only to learn the level of control he really has on what he write and how much time he has to get the work done. This is a story about the movie making process, while we focus more on the writing side of the filmmaking, it is focused on how being locked away in a new city can drive somebody slightly crazy. It is the story arcs that happen around the writing which become most interesting as we see just how things are never quite as they seem, this is Coen Brothers are their best, spinning what could be a routine story that sees things turned on their head.
Comedy – The comedy is the black comedy type, where we see just how twisted the comedy ends up being, with John Goodman getting most of the laughs in the film.
Settings – The LA setting shows what it would have been like in the early stages of the Hollywood boom, the era feels nature through the film.

Scene of the Movie – Flaming hallways.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The cops are too accusation heavy.
Final Thoughts – This is a dark comedy that works very well, it hits the heights every time it needs to thanks to the leading performances from Turturro and Goodman that are outstanding through the film.

Overall: Brilliant Comedy.
  
40x40

Sarah (7800 KP) rated Seven (1995) in Movies

Nov 18, 2020  
Seven (1995)
Seven (1995)
1995 | Drama, Mystery
A timeless crime thriller
Film #2 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Se7en

Se7en (1995) is directed by David Fincher and stars Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman, as two detectives investigating a serial killer murdering people according to the seven deadly sins. From the very beginning we are plunged into the dark, gritty and nameless city home to almost retired Detective Somerset (Freeman) and new transfer Detective Mills (Pitt). It’s a grim and grey landscape with seemingly never ending rain and some rather dark and disturbing murders to match. The cinematography in this is superb. Fincher has created an almost film noir style crime thriller with an edgy yet stylish look and feel that completely encompasses the subject matter perfectly. It’s the bizarre incongruences, like Somerset using a typewriter while the rest of the precinct use computers, or the almost complete lack of cultural references, that give this a timeless stylised feel.

And the subject matter itself sounds, on the surface, like a by the book detective story. But Se7en is much more than your average run of the mill thriller. Yes the two lead characters Mills and Somerset are the typical cops you’d find in any police movie: headstrong impulsive young gun versus wizened sensible and rational senior. But the performances from Freeman and Pitt are top notch, I’d even go so far as saying career best, and this paired with a clever script and a fairly horrifying plot that being this into the territory of one of the best detective movies ever made. The amount of quotable lines in the movie is surprising – any crime film that can include the line “Just because the fucker’s got a library card doesn’t make him Yoda” is on to a winner.

The central focus on the seven deadly sins simply adds to the intrigue and general intelligence of this as well. Regardless of your beliefs or background, it’s unlikely that there are many who haven’t heard of the seven deadly sins, and using these to murder people in rather horrific ways really enhances the threat and tension. Especially as the killer begins to leave hidden clues and hints in the hopes the detectives are smart enough to find them, which takes us as the viewer along for a rather interesting ride.

This is, without a doubt, very dark and fairly graphic with it’s crime scene depictions but it never feels like it goes too far. It’s gruesome and bloody but without that feeling of horror and disgust that comes from films that go over the top (i.e. the Saw franchise). And it isn’t all doom and gloom either as Fincher easily works in some rather heartwarming scenes between Somerset, Mills and Mill’s wife Tracey (Gwyneth Paltrow), as well as some well placed laugh out loud moments that further enhance the realistic tone that the film is trying to betray.

However the standout and most memorable moment for Se7en comes during the last half an hour. For those that haven’t seen the film and don’t want spoilers, shame on you and you may want to read no further…. It’s the final scenes when John Doe hands himself in to the detectives and takes them on a road trip into the wilderness to reveal his last two victims. Kevin Spacey, who wasn’t credited in the films opening sequence, puts in a stellar performance as the unnerving and downright creepy serial killer, whose motives are deeply disturbing. You can’t take your eyes off him in this final act. Pair this with a (literally) killer twist that no-one, let alone the detectives who have been one step behind Doe this entire movie, sees coming and a chilling denouement that perfectly wraps up the final two sins.

Se7en is by far one of the best detective thrillers ever made. It’s a masterpiece in filmmaking from David Fincher and some of the best work Freeman, Spacey and Pitt have ever done. 25 years on and this film is a timeless classic.
  
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
2019 | Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
Good (enough) conclusion to the Franchise
After a few attempts at resurrecting this franchise, James Cameron has (wisely) decided to bury the franchise with one last TERMINATOR film starring the original Terminator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger. TERMINATOR: DARK FATE is a direct sequel to T2: JUDGEMENT DAY (or so says Producer/Writer Cameron) as it ignores the 3rd and 4th movies in this series (as well as the television show THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES).

And that is a wise move as it simplifies things and just lets us get on to what a Terminator movie does best - fantastic action sequences, state of the art CGI, a killer robot that will stop at nothing to accomplish it's mission, and a plucky hero or 2 to battle said killer robot.

Oh...did I mention that they recruit a Terminator to help them stop the Terminator?

And it all works well...enough. Set in this year (2019), TERMINATOR: DARK FATE tells the tale of what happens next after Sarah and John Connor stopped Judgement Day in the 2nd Terminator film. A deadly - even more dangerous - Terminator (version 9!) returns to 2019 to kill a single woman (Natalie Reyes). This time she is helped by an augmented human from the future (Mackenzie Davis) and...Sarah Connor! Returning to this film, all buffed up and aging, is a craggy voiced Linda Hamilton as Sarah, who brings an adequate amount of world-weary, "been there, done that" attitude to the proceedings that pretty much carry the first half of the film.

And...just as the film was beginning to sag in the middle, along comes Arnold.

Playing an aging Terminator (which is explained, well enough, in the plot), Arnold plays the Terminator (who has been living with humans for over 20 years) with a wink in his eye and a sense of humor about him. Yep...this is a Terminator with a funny bone. And - I'll be darned - it works! Thanks to the performance of Mr. Schwarzenegger. He knows exactly what kind of film he is in and brings the right amount of energy, muscle and humor to the proceedings. He pretty much carries this film on his broad shoulders for the 2nd half - and he carries it with ease.

Credit Director Tim Miller (DEADPOOL) for keeping things light, simple and moving along crisply. He, too, understands the type of film he is making (and the audience that will go see this type of film) so he keeps the dialogue light and snappy, the plot at it's simplest and the action as high as he can go - blowing things up at a moment's notice. It's not sublte art by any stretch of the imagination, but it is art - in a way - and art that he does well.

If this is the last Terminator film (and I hope it is), then it is going out on a high (enough) note. I was surprisingly entertained (and not preached to) and, I think that is all I could have hoped for in a Terminator flick.

Letter Grade: B

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
  
Harriet (2019)
Harriet (2019)
2019 | Biography, Drama, History
Harriet Tubman was among one of the most significant abolitionists in United States history. This film tells the story of her life where she was born in Maryland as a plantation slave. Named Araminta at “Minty” Ross, she transforms throughout her journey, becoming Harriet Tubman as well as transforming into Moses, the appropriate name for the person who leads.

The story begins after church services where Minty’s husband John Tubman who was a free slave asks the plantation owner to allow Minty to be freed so their children would be born free instead of slaves. The slave owner, Henry Broadess (Mike Marunde played with a gleeful abundance of entitlement) denies the request. This is the spark where Araminta decides to run away to live as a free person.

Minty was known for her “spells” since the accident, where she was hit in the forehead by a thrown weight. The film interprets seizures as her conversation with God. The film uses these spells as her talks with and messages received from God. That is how Harriett’s visions are explained. That she has an ability to know where to go and what to from what she sees when she has an episode.

Harriet had saved herself from slavery. She made it to the State of Pennsylvania where she would be free. After a year or so, Harriet decided that she would not be able to rest comfortably as a “free slave” without her husband and her family. That is when she decided that she would go get her loved ones.

As we know from history, she saved her family and many others through the Underground Railroad. All her rescues were successful, totaling 70 that she brought to freedom. The Civil War began a few years later. We are shown Harriet, working with the Union Army to save the lives of about 700 slaves.

The film celebrates Harriet Tubman and provides a beautiful biographical film of this amazing woman. Cynthia Erivo should get a nomination or two come award season. Pssst, she already has a Tony from her performance of The Color Purple on Broadway and a Grammy. She is already halfway to an EGOT. The cast of the film is fantastic. Leslie Odom Jr. as William Still, the man who kept the records of each emancipated slave and provided new identities to help them. Then there is Janelle Monae, as Mary Buchanon, born a free woman. She was among the group that helped Harriet make a new life in Philadelphia.

The film tells a brave tale, but it glosses over the dark history of slavery. Yes, it is one of the dark chapters in humanity. The atrocities committed in the name of self-preservation are despicable. The creators of the movie could have provided a more realistic representation of a picture of slavery.
This film is very good. Ms. Erivo performs effortlessly as Harriet. The supporting cast are very good. Harriet Tubman was a hell of a woman back in the day. I liked the movie. I also would have liked to have slavery shown in stark reality, not coated in idealism.
  
Escape From L.A. (1996)
Escape From L.A. (1996)
1996 | Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
2
6.6 (25 Ratings)
Movie Rating
John Carpenter’s offering into the world of sequels couldn’t have been worse. Kurt Russell said he had a desire to play Snake Plissken once again and to be honest I wished he hadn’t bothered.

I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating. I have made my way through bad films over the years but this one really takes the title. After Carpenter’s engrossing and dark Escape from New York hit screens in 1981 a sequel was always going to be on the cards, but maybe they waited too long for it.

The plot is similar to the first, Plissken is yet again asked to save the day despite being injected with a virus that will kill him in within nine hours, although giving him ample time to save the day. This time he has to enter L.A. now separated from America after an earthquake and where the worst of the worst are sent, there he must retrieve a black box containing controls to a super weapon.

I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating

What really wound me up about this film were the most shoddy special effects ever! When you take into consideration that this came out at a similar time to the very excellent Independence Day whose CGI effects were second to none for the time, there was no comparison.

You have to wonder what Carpenter’s budget of $50,000,0000 went towards, Plissken’s underwater entry into L.A. is hilarious and is even worth the watch just for that alone.

The addition of a few more well known characters do manage to brighten the proceedings, such as Steve Buscemi as Map to the Stars Eddie and Bruce Campbell as Surgeon General of Beverly Hills, but they do very little to save this from being a complete disaster.

Russell allegedly wrote the ending to this, and to be honest it shows. If you were a fan of the first then I would leave this one well alone!
  
Confessions of Doctor Dream and Other Stories by Kevin Ayers
Confessions of Doctor Dream and Other Stories by Kevin Ayers
1974 | Rock
(0 Ratings)
Album Favorite

Lady Rachel by Kevin Ayers

(0 Ratings)

Track

"I’ve always had a soft spot for those artists that came out of the sort of psych-folk scene in Canterbury in the late ‘60s, but of all those performers Kevin Ayers is probably my favourite. “‘Lady Rachel’ has a real Englishness about it, which is kind of alien and almost exotic to me, because it’s a place I don’t really know much about; I never lived there. There’s something so far removed about the way he sings and pronounces words, like he’s from some far-off land. It feels like it’s come from the world of King Arthur and Alice in Wonderland and maybe a little bit of Mary Shelley or something. It’s a little bit Victorian and again, the themes are dark - it suggests death in the water. I liked that section of the ‘60s, where the psychedelic stuff was becoming a little bit more playful and wacky. “I don’t know about you, but sometimes I get really obsessed with songs and hunt down every version I can find of it. With ‘Lady Rachel’ I always felt like no one take of the song completely captured everything that was good about it; instead, each version captures one element of what I loved about it. The one that ended up on the album, Joy of a Toy, is really full and rich and very produced, but it’s played too fast and it loses a bit of the suspense - that glittery other-worldliness that gets lost in the speed of the performance. “There’s an amazing rendition of it that he did on The John Peel Show in 1973. Again, it’s a really beautiful version but there’s just this one line where he kind of steps out of character - he says “at least not very much!” in this kind of dorky, jokey voice and it undermines the mood of the rest of the song. It’s like going to see a play, getting to a critical moment and then the lead actor turns to the audience and says, ‘Hey, everyone - I’m actually just an actor.’ I’m always going, “Oh, man! Why did you do that?” Anyway, what the fuck am I doing, chasing perfection in music"

Source
  
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
1968 | Classics, Horror, Mystery

"“What have you done to its eyes?” How does a movie become a classic? Is it timing? Was it the dream-team collaboration of Paramount, Polanski, and Robert Evans? Was it producer William Castle, the mastermind who purchased the Ira Levin novel with plans to make it himself? Was it Mia Farrow, who had been painted with the brush of scandal after marrying Frank Sinatra? Did the devil himself have a hand in it? Whatever the reasons, my fascination with this film has never waned. There’s an enjoyment in watching Rosemary’s Baby that is similar to another gothic horror film, The Shining. It’s like listening to an album you love. Seeing the repetition of familiar scenes and faces. Shaking your head at Rosemary’s innocence as she tries to convince people that her neighbors might just be in a cult with Satan! Another highlight is the production design and cinematography. Not a frame is out of place, and it’s beautiful to look at. It captures a kind of sixties avant-garde vibe. I get the feeling Warhol would have liked this film. There are all sorts of great exterior location shots of New York, and the Dakota building on Seventy-Second Street adds the right spookiness. Does anyone remember or talk about what an amazing actress Mia Farrow is? Watch Broadway Danny Rose, and then watch Rosemary’s Baby. There’s some range there! Farrow as Rosemary has a beautiful, waifish glamour, enhanced by short dresses that make her seem more fragile and doll-like. John Cassavetes playing the “actor.” I love that he’s an “actor.” I love that his name is Guy! He makes a great prince of darkness. With his dark eyes and leering smile, well, you know he’s guilty of something the minute you see him. Then we have Ruth Gordon, who almost steals the film. Her caftan-wearing, mousse-making devil worshipper is the perfect amount of comic relief. I also love Charles Grodin as the fink doctor who squeals on Rosemary. Ralph Bellamy: terrifying! Every woman’s nightmare! Maybe that’s why I love it: Rosemary’s Baby plays on every woman’s fears. The man I married is different. Oh wait—maybe he’s sold his soul to the devil!"

Source
  
Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
2017 | Drama, Mystery
It is 1934, and our moustachioed detective has just solved a theft in Jerusalem. He looks forward to resting in Istanbul, but his break is interrupted with the news that he must return to London for a case. It seems like Poirot's luck is in, having just met his friend who is director of the Orient Express.

Once on board Poirot catches the attention of the businessman, Samuel Ratchett. Ratchett has received threatening letters, and wishes to hire the detective as his bodyguard during their journey, but the offer is politely declined.

That night an avalanche derails he train and the passengers are stranded. In the morning Ratchett is found dead, stabbed a dozen times. Poirot and Bouc, the train director, investigate the passengers as repairs begin. Poirot discovers a partially destroyed note connecting Ratchett to the kidnapping of Daisy Armstrong, a child who was abducted from her bedroom and held for ransom. After the ransom was paid, Daisy was found murdered. Ratchett is identified as John Cassetti, Daisy’s kidnapper and murderer.



First off, let me address the elephant in the room... that'll be Kenneth Branagh as Poirot. David Suchet will always be my Poirot, he's perfect. Branagh, for me, has an overacting issue. And that moustache, it's just ridiculous. That's not even taking into account the scene where Poirot is laying in bed and he doesn't have his night-time moustache cosy on. Crazy.

Agatha Christie's tale has definitely been given the Hollywood treatment. It's gone from the quite dark Suchet version, to something quite farcical in comparison. I can understand remaking some things, but when you have such a definitive portrayal of a character why would you recast them?

Having just rewatched the 2010 version I will say that the story line in the movie is probably easier to understand. It's also more suitable for a younger audience.

As a passing comment to everyone who was surprised to hear they were going to do Death On The Nile next... no shit, Poirot! It was dropped in at the end of the film.