Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mister Roberts (1955) in Movies
Apr 10, 2020
Well Acted
A staple of Old Hollywood under the Studio System was to adapt to the film Broadway shows that were a big hit. One such hit was the 1948 WWII play MISTER ROBERTS starring Henry Fonda (who would win a Tony Award for his performance).
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Call Of The Wild (2020) in Movies
Mar 1, 2020
When they announced Call of the Wild with Harrison Ford I was onboard, then they said they were CGIing the dog and I became expressionless. I understood how some bits would need to be CGId... but the whole dog? I WANT FLOOFS!
An excitable family pet gets taken to the wilds of the Yukon and sold as a sled dog. Along the way he makes new friends and learns about the call of the wild... I know, you'd never have guessed from the title of the film!
Let's deal with the giant dog in the room first. It's difficult to express my exact feelings about the CGI in the film, yes it isn't great, but by the end of the film [well, quite early on] I didn't care. Buck has so many personality traits and goofball moments that you know he must be CGI but it really doesn't matter. A lot of the things on screen I'm sure you would see in a real dog, but you can't put them through the same actions as their computer-generated counterparts. The opening sequence with Buck running through the house was cartoonish and daft, and while I rolled my eyes it was one of the many funny moments that happened throughout the film. You just acclimatise to the whole thing and forget that Buck isn't real.
While the humans take a back seat to Buck's adventures most of the time they're still great on screen. Omar Sy and Cara Gee as Perrault and Françoise make a great duo, and Sy with Buck has some very fun pieces. His reaction to the dogs feels very natural and the ice scene you briefly see in the trailer was a strong moment for everyone involved.
Dan Stevens playing Hal is the villain of the piece and his whole performance reminds me of a classic animated Disney villain, a cross between things from Lady and the Tramp, Beauty and the Beast and 101 Dalmations. There's a very specific maniacal villain in my head but I can't remember who or what film and it's driving me nuts! [Do let me know if you know!] By the end of the film though I was bothered more by his cartoonish acting than I was by the CG.
Our main pull was, of course, Harrison Ford. I don't know how John Thornton is portrayed in the book but the one in this film is a very relaxed character that only occasionally has to step it up. It isn't much of a stretched for Ford, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone told me he wasn't even acting.
This is peak adventure, with excitement, peril and humour. The whole audience was reacting, and it was wonderful. Having gone in prepared to be annoyed the whole way through I was amazed at just how much I laughed and cried, and how exhilarating they managed to make things. Call of the Wild was a delightful watch, dubious CGI and all.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-call-of-wild-movie-review.html
An excitable family pet gets taken to the wilds of the Yukon and sold as a sled dog. Along the way he makes new friends and learns about the call of the wild... I know, you'd never have guessed from the title of the film!
Let's deal with the giant dog in the room first. It's difficult to express my exact feelings about the CGI in the film, yes it isn't great, but by the end of the film [well, quite early on] I didn't care. Buck has so many personality traits and goofball moments that you know he must be CGI but it really doesn't matter. A lot of the things on screen I'm sure you would see in a real dog, but you can't put them through the same actions as their computer-generated counterparts. The opening sequence with Buck running through the house was cartoonish and daft, and while I rolled my eyes it was one of the many funny moments that happened throughout the film. You just acclimatise to the whole thing and forget that Buck isn't real.
While the humans take a back seat to Buck's adventures most of the time they're still great on screen. Omar Sy and Cara Gee as Perrault and Françoise make a great duo, and Sy with Buck has some very fun pieces. His reaction to the dogs feels very natural and the ice scene you briefly see in the trailer was a strong moment for everyone involved.
Dan Stevens playing Hal is the villain of the piece and his whole performance reminds me of a classic animated Disney villain, a cross between things from Lady and the Tramp, Beauty and the Beast and 101 Dalmations. There's a very specific maniacal villain in my head but I can't remember who or what film and it's driving me nuts! [Do let me know if you know!] By the end of the film though I was bothered more by his cartoonish acting than I was by the CG.
Our main pull was, of course, Harrison Ford. I don't know how John Thornton is portrayed in the book but the one in this film is a very relaxed character that only occasionally has to step it up. It isn't much of a stretched for Ford, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone told me he wasn't even acting.
This is peak adventure, with excitement, peril and humour. The whole audience was reacting, and it was wonderful. Having gone in prepared to be annoyed the whole way through I was amazed at just how much I laughed and cried, and how exhilarating they managed to make things. Call of the Wild was a delightful watch, dubious CGI and all.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-call-of-wild-movie-review.html
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Batman (1989) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Batman- i love this movie, i have seen it about 7-9 times. I love michael Keaton as bruce wayne/batman. I love jack nicholson as the joker. This movie has action, comedy, suspense, laughing gas, a prince song, adventure and so much more. Also you have darkness, romance, lots of screaming from Vicki Vale played by Kim Basinger. Did i mention that Tim Burton directed this film.
The Plot: Having witnessed his parents' brutal murder as a child, millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) fights crime in Gotham City disguised as Batman, a costumed hero who strikes fear into the hearts of villains. But when a deformed madman who calls himself "The Joker" (Jack Nicholson) seizes control of Gotham's criminal underworld, Batman must face his most ruthless nemesis ever while protecting both his identity and his love interest, reporter Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger).
Keaton's casting caused a controversy since, by 1988, he had become typecast as a comedic actor and many observers doubted he could portray a serious role. Nicholson accepted the role of the Joker under strict conditions that dictated top billing, a high salary, a portion of the box office profits and his own shooting schedule.
The tone and themes of the film were influenced in part by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. The film primarily adapts the "Red Hood" origin story for the Joker, in which Batman inadvertently creates the Joker by causing him to fall into Axis Chemical acid, resulting in his transformation into a psychopath, but it adds a unique twist in presenting him specifically as a gangster named Jack Napier.
Considered the role of Batman, including Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Charlie Sheen, Tom Selleck, Bill Murray, Harrison Ford and Dennis Quaid.
Brad Dourif, Tim Curry, David Bowie, John Lithgow and James Woods were considered for the Joker.
This film is great and should be watched.
The Plot: Having witnessed his parents' brutal murder as a child, millionaire philanthropist Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) fights crime in Gotham City disguised as Batman, a costumed hero who strikes fear into the hearts of villains. But when a deformed madman who calls himself "The Joker" (Jack Nicholson) seizes control of Gotham's criminal underworld, Batman must face his most ruthless nemesis ever while protecting both his identity and his love interest, reporter Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger).
Keaton's casting caused a controversy since, by 1988, he had become typecast as a comedic actor and many observers doubted he could portray a serious role. Nicholson accepted the role of the Joker under strict conditions that dictated top billing, a high salary, a portion of the box office profits and his own shooting schedule.
The tone and themes of the film were influenced in part by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. The film primarily adapts the "Red Hood" origin story for the Joker, in which Batman inadvertently creates the Joker by causing him to fall into Axis Chemical acid, resulting in his transformation into a psychopath, but it adds a unique twist in presenting him specifically as a gangster named Jack Napier.
Considered the role of Batman, including Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Charlie Sheen, Tom Selleck, Bill Murray, Harrison Ford and Dennis Quaid.
Brad Dourif, Tim Curry, David Bowie, John Lithgow and James Woods were considered for the Joker.
This film is great and should be watched.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Star Wars goes western
Star Wars has had somewhat of a chequered history since turning over to the dark side, sorry, I mean Disney. You see, since LucasFilm was acquired by the House of Mouse there has been one Star Wars movie each year. The Force Awakens was good, if a little safe and The Last Jedi was brilliant, but incredibly divisive.
What’s been more exciting to see evolve however, is the Star Wars Story movies. Rogue One became my 2nd favourite film in the series after Empire with Godzilla director, Gareth Edwards proving to be a force to be reckoned with. Then, LEGO Movie directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller were hired to direct a Han Solo origins story and that got people very excited indeed.Fast forward a few months and they were unceremoniously dumped from the project during filming with veteran director Ron Howard brought in as their replacements. Howard’s name is a concerning one. He’s become something of a director-for-hire over the last decade: competent but not exemplary. Phew! Keeping up? Good.
The resulting film has been plagued by ballooning costs, expensive reshoots and rumours of on-set acting classes for some of the stars. It’s finally here, but are we looking at the first new generation Star Wars failure?
Young Han Solo (Alden Ehrenreich) finds adventure when he joins a gang of galactic smugglers, including a 196-year-old Wookie named Chewbacca. Indebted to the gangster Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany), the crew devises a daring plan to travel to the mining planet Kessel to steal a batch of valuable coaxium. In need of a fast ship, Solo meets Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), the suave owner of the perfect vessel for the dangerous mission — the Millennium Falcon.
Thankfully, and by nothing short of a miracle, Solo: A Star Wars Story is engaging, packed full of nostalgia and features an incredible ensemble cast. It’s not perfect by any means, but we’ll get on to that later.
Billed as a heist meets western kinda movie, Solo hits all the right beats to carefully straddle the line between those two genres. The writing is snappy, genuinely funny and engaging with all the cast members doing their fair share of the heavy lifting. Emilia Clarke is great as Solo’s love interest Qi’Ra and Woody Harrelson is as charming as ever in a role that could’ve been serviced by many 50-something actors who could do fancy stuff with a blaster.
It is in Donald Glover however that the film truly belongs. His Lando Calrissian is absolutely, unequivocally sublime. He channels his counterpart from Empire beautifully and you do feel like you’re watching a young Billy Dee Williams in action.
There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb
In fact, there are only two of the main cast members that fail to register in the way that they had clearly intended to do. One is Paul Bettany’s Dryden Vos; the Star Wars universe’s first real villain failure. Alas, it’s not the fault of Bettany. The part was originally written for a CGI motion capture performance but was changed at the last minute with reshoots being added for Bettany’s scenes.
The other, unfortunately, is Han Solo himself. Alden Ehrenreich definitely makes all the right noises. He’s cocky, arrogant, self-assured, just like Harrison Ford, but, for all of his effort, he just isn’t doing a Harrison Ford in this film. Now, that doesn’t ruin the movie as much as you might think it does, as it’s easy to just go along for the ride, but at no point in Solo’s run time did I think we were watching a young Harrison Ford in action. Ehrenreich is good, he’s just not that good.
Thankfully, what is that good is the cinematography. The action is staged beautifully, though I’m unsure as to whether this is Howard’s influence or the previous directors. There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb. The CGI is nicely integrated with animatronics and props, just like a Star Wars movie should be, and each of the set pieces is brimming with excitement.
One sequence in particular, involving the liberation of some slaves is really nicely filmed with a great colour palate and the much-marketed monorail heist is edge-of-your-seat stuff with cracking CGI.
Pacing is generally good, and at 135 minutes that is no easy win though things do drag a little about half way through. What is pleasing however, is how the bromance between Chewbacca and Han takes a backseat up until about 40 minutes before the end in which a familiar theme plays over the action: it’s spine-tingling in its simplicity. In fact, John Powell’s score is rousing when it needs to be and beautifully put together. A real match for John Williams’ classic orchestral soundtrack.
Overall, Solo: A Star Wars Story is better than it had any right to be. Whenever a film goes through such a turbulent production process, it’s always concerning that the final product will be somehow lesser in quality, but this isn’t the case here. It’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as a continuation of the new Star Wars mantra under Disney, it’s a fitting entry and a great addition to the series.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/24/solo-a-star-wars-story-review-stars-wars-goes-western/
What’s been more exciting to see evolve however, is the Star Wars Story movies. Rogue One became my 2nd favourite film in the series after Empire with Godzilla director, Gareth Edwards proving to be a force to be reckoned with. Then, LEGO Movie directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller were hired to direct a Han Solo origins story and that got people very excited indeed.Fast forward a few months and they were unceremoniously dumped from the project during filming with veteran director Ron Howard brought in as their replacements. Howard’s name is a concerning one. He’s become something of a director-for-hire over the last decade: competent but not exemplary. Phew! Keeping up? Good.
The resulting film has been plagued by ballooning costs, expensive reshoots and rumours of on-set acting classes for some of the stars. It’s finally here, but are we looking at the first new generation Star Wars failure?
Young Han Solo (Alden Ehrenreich) finds adventure when he joins a gang of galactic smugglers, including a 196-year-old Wookie named Chewbacca. Indebted to the gangster Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany), the crew devises a daring plan to travel to the mining planet Kessel to steal a batch of valuable coaxium. In need of a fast ship, Solo meets Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), the suave owner of the perfect vessel for the dangerous mission — the Millennium Falcon.
Thankfully, and by nothing short of a miracle, Solo: A Star Wars Story is engaging, packed full of nostalgia and features an incredible ensemble cast. It’s not perfect by any means, but we’ll get on to that later.
Billed as a heist meets western kinda movie, Solo hits all the right beats to carefully straddle the line between those two genres. The writing is snappy, genuinely funny and engaging with all the cast members doing their fair share of the heavy lifting. Emilia Clarke is great as Solo’s love interest Qi’Ra and Woody Harrelson is as charming as ever in a role that could’ve been serviced by many 50-something actors who could do fancy stuff with a blaster.
It is in Donald Glover however that the film truly belongs. His Lando Calrissian is absolutely, unequivocally sublime. He channels his counterpart from Empire beautifully and you do feel like you’re watching a young Billy Dee Williams in action.
There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb
In fact, there are only two of the main cast members that fail to register in the way that they had clearly intended to do. One is Paul Bettany’s Dryden Vos; the Star Wars universe’s first real villain failure. Alas, it’s not the fault of Bettany. The part was originally written for a CGI motion capture performance but was changed at the last minute with reshoots being added for Bettany’s scenes.
The other, unfortunately, is Han Solo himself. Alden Ehrenreich definitely makes all the right noises. He’s cocky, arrogant, self-assured, just like Harrison Ford, but, for all of his effort, he just isn’t doing a Harrison Ford in this film. Now, that doesn’t ruin the movie as much as you might think it does, as it’s easy to just go along for the ride, but at no point in Solo’s run time did I think we were watching a young Harrison Ford in action. Ehrenreich is good, he’s just not that good.
Thankfully, what is that good is the cinematography. The action is staged beautifully, though I’m unsure as to whether this is Howard’s influence or the previous directors. There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb. The CGI is nicely integrated with animatronics and props, just like a Star Wars movie should be, and each of the set pieces is brimming with excitement.
One sequence in particular, involving the liberation of some slaves is really nicely filmed with a great colour palate and the much-marketed monorail heist is edge-of-your-seat stuff with cracking CGI.
Pacing is generally good, and at 135 minutes that is no easy win though things do drag a little about half way through. What is pleasing however, is how the bromance between Chewbacca and Han takes a backseat up until about 40 minutes before the end in which a familiar theme plays over the action: it’s spine-tingling in its simplicity. In fact, John Powell’s score is rousing when it needs to be and beautifully put together. A real match for John Williams’ classic orchestral soundtrack.
Overall, Solo: A Star Wars Story is better than it had any right to be. Whenever a film goes through such a turbulent production process, it’s always concerning that the final product will be somehow lesser in quality, but this isn’t the case here. It’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as a continuation of the new Star Wars mantra under Disney, it’s a fitting entry and a great addition to the series.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/24/solo-a-star-wars-story-review-stars-wars-goes-western/
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in Books
Nov 14, 2019
What can be said about Douglas Adams' freewheeling science fiction comedy that hasn't been said before? Probably nothing but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a review.
I first came to the Hitchhiker's Guide series through this book. It was about 1981 I suppose and it was recommended by a school friend. I hadn't been aware of the radio series (although as luck would have it it was repeated on BBC Radio 4 within a few weeks) and it was a little while before the television adaptation appeared (which for all its faults - mainly a lack of budget - stayed true to the spirit of the books and the radio series rather more successfully than the film).
From the point I opened this and started reading I couldn't get enough Hitchhiker's Guide. Adams' style is so much like a swan on a lake - it all seems effortless on the surface but underneath there's a lot going on. As Adams' friend John Lloyd has commented, he had the ability to write backwards, so he would start with several pages of (what to other people would be) excellent material and after a couple of days' furious writing it would be down to 2 pages, but each sentence a carefully crafted gem. The result is like the difference between beer and vodka. You will enjoy drinking the beer but the distilled and concentrated vodka will knock you out.
There is real genius in the wit, ideas seemingly being pulled from nowhere and taking on a whole new aspect (towels for example). Delightful non-sequitors (especially from aliens who turn out to be pretty ordinary - or frequently less than ordinary), brilliant and inventive word play and sheer imagination and brio run through every page, all joined together by delightful asides from 'the book'.
The story itself is based on the radio series of the same name which was pretty much made up as it went along, Adams following whatever idea seemed to give him the best scope for a quick gag at the time. But somehow this all works and the story is remarkably coherent (although the book does veer away from the thread of the radio series at the very end). It has been said before that it resembles Gulliver's Travels as each new world reveals new wonders (or new banalities shining a light on our own humdrum existences here on Earth).
Oh the story? The book essentially follows one Arthur Dent, a completely unremarkable and normal human being apart from two things. Firstly his house is about to be demolished to make way for a bypass, a fact he was previously unaware of. Secondly his friend Ford Prefect (the book explains the name) is not from Guildford after all but from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse. When aliens show up to demolish the whole Earth to make way for an interstellar bypass, Ford saves Arthur from certain death and reveals he is a reporter for a book called The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy and he got stuck on Earth for rather a long time.
Arthur proceeds to have a rather horrible time being shot at, thrown out of spaceships, patronised and generally baffled by everything that is going on around him. But The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy is always on hand to try to explain things.
Incredibly amusing, brilliantly written and ultimately quoteable this not just a good book, it is something that really everyone should read.
I first came to the Hitchhiker's Guide series through this book. It was about 1981 I suppose and it was recommended by a school friend. I hadn't been aware of the radio series (although as luck would have it it was repeated on BBC Radio 4 within a few weeks) and it was a little while before the television adaptation appeared (which for all its faults - mainly a lack of budget - stayed true to the spirit of the books and the radio series rather more successfully than the film).
From the point I opened this and started reading I couldn't get enough Hitchhiker's Guide. Adams' style is so much like a swan on a lake - it all seems effortless on the surface but underneath there's a lot going on. As Adams' friend John Lloyd has commented, he had the ability to write backwards, so he would start with several pages of (what to other people would be) excellent material and after a couple of days' furious writing it would be down to 2 pages, but each sentence a carefully crafted gem. The result is like the difference between beer and vodka. You will enjoy drinking the beer but the distilled and concentrated vodka will knock you out.
There is real genius in the wit, ideas seemingly being pulled from nowhere and taking on a whole new aspect (towels for example). Delightful non-sequitors (especially from aliens who turn out to be pretty ordinary - or frequently less than ordinary), brilliant and inventive word play and sheer imagination and brio run through every page, all joined together by delightful asides from 'the book'.
The story itself is based on the radio series of the same name which was pretty much made up as it went along, Adams following whatever idea seemed to give him the best scope for a quick gag at the time. But somehow this all works and the story is remarkably coherent (although the book does veer away from the thread of the radio series at the very end). It has been said before that it resembles Gulliver's Travels as each new world reveals new wonders (or new banalities shining a light on our own humdrum existences here on Earth).
Oh the story? The book essentially follows one Arthur Dent, a completely unremarkable and normal human being apart from two things. Firstly his house is about to be demolished to make way for a bypass, a fact he was previously unaware of. Secondly his friend Ford Prefect (the book explains the name) is not from Guildford after all but from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse. When aliens show up to demolish the whole Earth to make way for an interstellar bypass, Ford saves Arthur from certain death and reveals he is a reporter for a book called The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy and he got stuck on Earth for rather a long time.
Arthur proceeds to have a rather horrible time being shot at, thrown out of spaceships, patronised and generally baffled by everything that is going on around him. But The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy is always on hand to try to explain things.
Incredibly amusing, brilliantly written and ultimately quoteable this not just a good book, it is something that really everyone should read.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All of Me (1984) in Movies
Jul 28, 2020
Wonderful physical comedy performance by Martin
Over the history of cinema, there are certain Director/Lead Actor pairings that are perfect for each other. John Ford/John Wayne, Alfred Hitchcock/Jimmy Stewart, Martin Scorcese/Robert DeNiro, Steven Spielberg/Tom Hanks all come to mind. Add to that the inspired comedic pairing of Director Carl Reiner and the great Steve Martin.
Starting with THE JERK (1979), Martin and Reiner would make 4 films together the last of which was the 1984 comedy ALL OF ME starring Martin and Lilly Tomlin. And like all Reiner/Martin comedies this one is smartly written with heart and a physically comedic performance by Martin that must be seen to believed.
Martin stars as Lawyer Martin Cobb, an aspiring musician who views his lawyer job as a means to support his dream of becoming a musician. Lilly Tomlin co-stars as one of Martin's clients - a dour, serious millionaire who's dying wish is to have her soul transferred into the body of a younger woman. When the transfer goes wrong, Tomlin finds herself inside Martin's body and the two polar opposites spar each other whilst inside the same body.
A pretty ridiculous premise that is executed wonderfully under the watchful Direction of Reiner. He pushes the premise far - but not too far - focusing (wisely) most of the attention of this movie on Martin and his body's maniacal behavior as both Martin and Tomlin wrestle for control of his body.
Martin, of course, is perfectly cast in a role that was tailor made for him. His physical comedy skills are well used by Reiner and the scene of Martin walking down the street in control of the left side of his body while Tomlin is in control of the right side of his body is worth the price of admission right there. But Martin brings a heart and warmth to his character as well as his well known personae of a person who thinks he is the only sane one in the room - where, in fact, he is the INSANE one.
Tomlin fares less well in her role - being trapped (literally) inside Martin's body and is only seen as reflections in a mirror. Here character is the polar opposite of Martin's, so while Martin is "wild and crazy", she is dour and buttoned up - and this doesn't do her any favors.
Special notice needs to be made of Richard Libertini's turn as Prahka Lasa, the well-meaning "yogi" who is the conduit of the body switching soul. His limited English, earnest and well meaning almost steals the film from Martin.
All in all, an enjoyable evening at the movies which showcases Reiner's ability as a Director and Martin's ability as a gifted, physical comedian very well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starting with THE JERK (1979), Martin and Reiner would make 4 films together the last of which was the 1984 comedy ALL OF ME starring Martin and Lilly Tomlin. And like all Reiner/Martin comedies this one is smartly written with heart and a physically comedic performance by Martin that must be seen to believed.
Martin stars as Lawyer Martin Cobb, an aspiring musician who views his lawyer job as a means to support his dream of becoming a musician. Lilly Tomlin co-stars as one of Martin's clients - a dour, serious millionaire who's dying wish is to have her soul transferred into the body of a younger woman. When the transfer goes wrong, Tomlin finds herself inside Martin's body and the two polar opposites spar each other whilst inside the same body.
A pretty ridiculous premise that is executed wonderfully under the watchful Direction of Reiner. He pushes the premise far - but not too far - focusing (wisely) most of the attention of this movie on Martin and his body's maniacal behavior as both Martin and Tomlin wrestle for control of his body.
Martin, of course, is perfectly cast in a role that was tailor made for him. His physical comedy skills are well used by Reiner and the scene of Martin walking down the street in control of the left side of his body while Tomlin is in control of the right side of his body is worth the price of admission right there. But Martin brings a heart and warmth to his character as well as his well known personae of a person who thinks he is the only sane one in the room - where, in fact, he is the INSANE one.
Tomlin fares less well in her role - being trapped (literally) inside Martin's body and is only seen as reflections in a mirror. Here character is the polar opposite of Martin's, so while Martin is "wild and crazy", she is dour and buttoned up - and this doesn't do her any favors.
Special notice needs to be made of Richard Libertini's turn as Prahka Lasa, the well-meaning "yogi" who is the conduit of the body switching soul. His limited English, earnest and well meaning almost steals the film from Martin.
All in all, an enjoyable evening at the movies which showcases Reiner's ability as a Director and Martin's ability as a gifted, physical comedian very well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Overlord (2018) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020 (Updated Oct 29, 2020)
Over The Top Action Horror Gorefest - 8/10
Overlord is a action/horror movie directed by Julius Avery, and written by Billy Ray and Mark L. Smith. Produced by J. J. Abrams and Lindsey Weber through Bad Robot Productions, it's R rating, action, and gore carry it past where so many PG-13 horror movies fall short. I really enjoyed this movie despite the familiarity of feeling like a movie version of Call of Duty's Nazi Zombies.
The night before D-day a squad of paratroopers are tasked with destroying a German radio tower in an occupied French village. Before they can reach their target their plane is shot down and they are left with a ragtag group of survivors: Private First Class Ed Boyce (Jovan Adepo), and Corporal Ford (Wyatt Russell) among others. Also starring John Magaro, Iain De Caestecker, Jacob Anderson, and Dominic Applewhite. While traveling they find a French woman, Chloe (Matthilde Ollivier) who leads them to her home in the village where she lives with her little brother. Boyce is ordered to look for survivors at a rendezvous point and while avoiding detection, has no choice but to infiltrate the base to hide from soldiers. While using the base as a means of escape and avoid capture he learns the Nazis are submitting p.o.w.s and villagers to horrendous experiments involving a mysterious liquid.
While no character came off as exclusively entertaining to me, I felt the film did well in conveying the difficulty of a diverse group being forced to work with each other for their survival. I also felt the casting was successful, although the lead didn't fall into the usual "soldier" archetype, the others did, but rounded off the group in a good way. The casts' chemistry was good, their roles were believable plus the special effects and gore were awesome. Like I said 8/10, almost a 9, but I felt it suspended disbelief too much at the end and was a little "too" over the top.
The night before D-day a squad of paratroopers are tasked with destroying a German radio tower in an occupied French village. Before they can reach their target their plane is shot down and they are left with a ragtag group of survivors: Private First Class Ed Boyce (Jovan Adepo), and Corporal Ford (Wyatt Russell) among others. Also starring John Magaro, Iain De Caestecker, Jacob Anderson, and Dominic Applewhite. While traveling they find a French woman, Chloe (Matthilde Ollivier) who leads them to her home in the village where she lives with her little brother. Boyce is ordered to look for survivors at a rendezvous point and while avoiding detection, has no choice but to infiltrate the base to hide from soldiers. While using the base as a means of escape and avoid capture he learns the Nazis are submitting p.o.w.s and villagers to horrendous experiments involving a mysterious liquid.
While no character came off as exclusively entertaining to me, I felt the film did well in conveying the difficulty of a diverse group being forced to work with each other for their survival. I also felt the casting was successful, although the lead didn't fall into the usual "soldier" archetype, the others did, but rounded off the group in a good way. The casts' chemistry was good, their roles were believable plus the special effects and gore were awesome. Like I said 8/10, almost a 9, but I felt it suspended disbelief too much at the end and was a little "too" over the top.
Colin O'Donoghue recommended The Conversation (1974) in Movies (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Edward Scissorhands (1990) in Movies
Apr 23, 2020
Has more heart than later Burton/Depp collaborations
There have been many actor/director long term collaborations through the years - John Ford/John Wayne, Martin Scorcese/Robert DeNiro and Alfred Hitchock/Jimmy Stewart all come to mind. Another interesting collaboration is the unique one between Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. The films these 2 have made have shown an "outsider" being introduced into an environment - usually in a quirky and gothic dark manner. So it was interesting to go back to the film that started it all - 1990's EDWARD SCISSORHANDS.
Interestingly enough, this film works because of the lack of weight of previous Burton/Depp collaborations.
Let me explain...
If you were to hear today that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp were to collaborate on a film, what expectations would you have? Quirky, dark and gothic comes to mind. With EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, none of these expectations were in place. You can see the purity in the beginning of this collaboration with these 2 artists finding there footing together in a film that is...yes...quirky, dark and gothic.
It is also, unexpectedly, light, airy, funny and poignant - traits that I think get lost in later Burton/Depp collaborations....collaborations where the focus seemed to be on the design and look and less on the emotion.
Set in a timeless, stylized world that is part '50's, part '60's, part 80's and part "everything else", EDWARD SCISSORHANDS is Burton's loose retelling of the Frankenstein story, where an isolated inventor (in this case Vincent Price) creates life (Depp)...with scissors for hands (you'll have to see the film to see why). When a local resident (and door to door cosmetic saleslady) discovers Edward living alone, she invites him into her house - and into the lives of the the neighborhood that exists below.
Depp owns this character - and owns it well. He brings an innocence and integrity to this character that rides a fine line well. His character is naive - but not simpleminded. He is longing to please - and to be loved - but has his own mind. In Depp's performance, you see an actor coming into his own.
He is joined - wonderfully - by Diane Wiest as the lady that invites him into her home. Winona Ryder (who turned down Godfather 3 to appear in this film) as Wiest's daughter (and object of Edward's affections) and the great Alan Arkin as the patriarch of the family who is a fun stereo-type of the Suburban dad.
All of this is packaged - uniquely - by Burton with an "8 crayon" color palate that exaggerates the various styles of the time. It is an expert job of combining styles into a unique vision that works very, very well.
I also have to give Burton credit for casting the iconic horror movie veteran Vincent Price (in his last film role) as the inventor of Edward Scissorhands.
I was taken under the spell of this film - and not just because of the interesting visuals - it has a heart and soul (because of Depp's work) that, I think both Depp and Burton lose in some of their later collaborations.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile - check it out - I think you'll like it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Interestingly enough, this film works because of the lack of weight of previous Burton/Depp collaborations.
Let me explain...
If you were to hear today that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp were to collaborate on a film, what expectations would you have? Quirky, dark and gothic comes to mind. With EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, none of these expectations were in place. You can see the purity in the beginning of this collaboration with these 2 artists finding there footing together in a film that is...yes...quirky, dark and gothic.
It is also, unexpectedly, light, airy, funny and poignant - traits that I think get lost in later Burton/Depp collaborations....collaborations where the focus seemed to be on the design and look and less on the emotion.
Set in a timeless, stylized world that is part '50's, part '60's, part 80's and part "everything else", EDWARD SCISSORHANDS is Burton's loose retelling of the Frankenstein story, where an isolated inventor (in this case Vincent Price) creates life (Depp)...with scissors for hands (you'll have to see the film to see why). When a local resident (and door to door cosmetic saleslady) discovers Edward living alone, she invites him into her house - and into the lives of the the neighborhood that exists below.
Depp owns this character - and owns it well. He brings an innocence and integrity to this character that rides a fine line well. His character is naive - but not simpleminded. He is longing to please - and to be loved - but has his own mind. In Depp's performance, you see an actor coming into his own.
He is joined - wonderfully - by Diane Wiest as the lady that invites him into her home. Winona Ryder (who turned down Godfather 3 to appear in this film) as Wiest's daughter (and object of Edward's affections) and the great Alan Arkin as the patriarch of the family who is a fun stereo-type of the Suburban dad.
All of this is packaged - uniquely - by Burton with an "8 crayon" color palate that exaggerates the various styles of the time. It is an expert job of combining styles into a unique vision that works very, very well.
I also have to give Burton credit for casting the iconic horror movie veteran Vincent Price (in his last film role) as the inventor of Edward Scissorhands.
I was taken under the spell of this film - and not just because of the interesting visuals - it has a heart and soul (because of Depp's work) that, I think both Depp and Burton lose in some of their later collaborations.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile - check it out - I think you'll like it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)