Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Important Movie
Set in the 1970’s, the first black police officer on the Colorado Springs police force attempts to infiltrate the Klu Klux Klan by becoming one of them.
Acting: 10
I don’t know who I liked better throughout the movie, John David Washington as Ron Stallworth or Adam Driver playing Jewish cop Flip Zimmerman. Not only were they amazing individually, but they complimented each other with great chemistry on screen. Whatever emotion director Spike Lee was trying to make you feel was amplified in their joint scenes. Washington is charming, funny, and witty, all the things you want from a leading role. His heroic character is one of my favorites from the year.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The visuals are amazingly crisp, poignant for each scene. It transports you perfectly into the time period without feeling overdone. While the film is largely a comedy, it succeeds in spots by relying on tension and intense moments. Spike Lee has a way of capturing those moments with sheer perfection. It has an artsy feel to it, sometimes over the top, but never unrelatable. Relatable Art. I think that’s the best way to describe it.
Conflict: 10
Whether subtle or in your face, conflict comes in waves throughout BlackkKlansman. You keep waiting for bad things to happen and sometimes they do. When they don’t, you know it’s only a matter of time before things get harry again. There was never a point where I was bored in the movie. Even the planning scenes where they were trying to figure out just how to get a black man to infiltrate a white supremacist organization was fun to watch.
Genre: 10
One of the most important dramas of our generation. Period. Nothing else needs to be said here.
Memorability: 10
The story in and of itself brings an originality you won’t soon forget. On paper, it sounds absolutely nuts. Watching it unfold on the big screen is even more nuts. Even though it’s based on a true story, it’s still very much hard to believe. It’s powerful and real with solid messaging that translates to the now. Even the comedy in certain moments has a way of leaving a real impact.
Pace: 10
The film is long, but it’s a smooth long. The pacing feels like a brisk jog. You always know the direction you’re heading and it never feels like it has to cheat or take shortcuts to properly tell the story. Not boring in the least. Engaging and entertaining throughout.
Plot: 8
Again, much respect for an original story. My one gripe: I don’t think the love story was necessary. It didn’t really contribute to the movie as a whole. Everything outside of that was wonderful and beautifully done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Expected to like BlackkKlansman, but I fell in love with this movie. It tells a wonderful story that leaves you talking long after it’s over. I’ve said this already, but it bears repeating: This is one of the most important films of our generation. See it. Don’t think twice.
Acting: 10
I don’t know who I liked better throughout the movie, John David Washington as Ron Stallworth or Adam Driver playing Jewish cop Flip Zimmerman. Not only were they amazing individually, but they complimented each other with great chemistry on screen. Whatever emotion director Spike Lee was trying to make you feel was amplified in their joint scenes. Washington is charming, funny, and witty, all the things you want from a leading role. His heroic character is one of my favorites from the year.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The visuals are amazingly crisp, poignant for each scene. It transports you perfectly into the time period without feeling overdone. While the film is largely a comedy, it succeeds in spots by relying on tension and intense moments. Spike Lee has a way of capturing those moments with sheer perfection. It has an artsy feel to it, sometimes over the top, but never unrelatable. Relatable Art. I think that’s the best way to describe it.
Conflict: 10
Whether subtle or in your face, conflict comes in waves throughout BlackkKlansman. You keep waiting for bad things to happen and sometimes they do. When they don’t, you know it’s only a matter of time before things get harry again. There was never a point where I was bored in the movie. Even the planning scenes where they were trying to figure out just how to get a black man to infiltrate a white supremacist organization was fun to watch.
Genre: 10
One of the most important dramas of our generation. Period. Nothing else needs to be said here.
Memorability: 10
The story in and of itself brings an originality you won’t soon forget. On paper, it sounds absolutely nuts. Watching it unfold on the big screen is even more nuts. Even though it’s based on a true story, it’s still very much hard to believe. It’s powerful and real with solid messaging that translates to the now. Even the comedy in certain moments has a way of leaving a real impact.
Pace: 10
The film is long, but it’s a smooth long. The pacing feels like a brisk jog. You always know the direction you’re heading and it never feels like it has to cheat or take shortcuts to properly tell the story. Not boring in the least. Engaging and entertaining throughout.
Plot: 8
Again, much respect for an original story. My one gripe: I don’t think the love story was necessary. It didn’t really contribute to the movie as a whole. Everything outside of that was wonderful and beautifully done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Expected to like BlackkKlansman, but I fell in love with this movie. It tells a wonderful story that leaves you talking long after it’s over. I’ve said this already, but it bears repeating: This is one of the most important films of our generation. See it. Don’t think twice.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It has been four years since Harold and Kumar embarked on their munchies induced quest for White Castle hamburgers. The resulting chaos and mayhem that resulted led to solid box office and DVD sales and spawned the sequel “Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay”.
The film picks up at the conclusion of the last film and finds Harold (John Cho), planning a trip to Amsterdam with his friend Kumar (Kal Penn), in order to surprise his new girlfriend Maria (Paula Garces). Kumar is thrilled at the idea of the trip fueled in large part due to Amsterdam’s very tolerant attitude towards drugs.
As they prepare to board their plane, the duo meet Kumar’s old girlfriend Vanessa (Danneel Harris), who is about to marry a powerful and conservative Texan named Colton (Eric Winter), who has designs on being the President someday.
Unwilling to let on that he still holds a torch for Vanessa, Kumar attempts to get high during the flight and ends up getting himself and Harold mistaken for terrorists. Before the duo know what has hit them they have run afoul of Homeland Security agent Ron Fox (Rob Corddry), and are sharing a cell in Guantanamo Bay.
Desperate to escape their plight, the duo soon find themselves on the lam with Fox and the nations law enforcement officials in hot pursuit.
Harold and Kumar hope to make it to Texas in order to seek help from Colton as Harold thinks that due to their friendship and his connections he can get the duo out of their predicament. Kumar is all for this as not only is it the best way to get out of their situation but he secretly thinks he can get Vanessa to come back to him before it is too late.
Along the way the duo look to find help from their bizarre friends, and run into all manner of obstacles ranging from the Klan, Rednecks, and Neil Patrick Harris in a very funny cameo, and countless other bizarre people and situations.
The film is crude but if you were a fan of the last film, you will likely find this film very funny. The chemistry between Cho and Penn is good and it is fun to see the misadventures of the two best friends and hear them argue amongst themselves over their plight. Harold being the more level headed of the two is furious over the irresponsible Kumar and how he got them into this situation, but he is willing to stand by his friend to a point, which results in one of the fun moments in the film when the duo end up in a brothel in Texas.
Penn and Cho also seem to be having a good time playing the characters and despite the abundance of crude and drug related humor, there are some genuinely funny moments in the film and it is better than the first film in the series.
Those expecting a deep plot and characters will be disappointed, but if you came into this film looking for those elements, then you must have gotten into Kumar’s stash. That being said, take the film for what it is, and enjoyable if light piece of comedy, and you are likely to be glad that you are along for the ride.
The film picks up at the conclusion of the last film and finds Harold (John Cho), planning a trip to Amsterdam with his friend Kumar (Kal Penn), in order to surprise his new girlfriend Maria (Paula Garces). Kumar is thrilled at the idea of the trip fueled in large part due to Amsterdam’s very tolerant attitude towards drugs.
As they prepare to board their plane, the duo meet Kumar’s old girlfriend Vanessa (Danneel Harris), who is about to marry a powerful and conservative Texan named Colton (Eric Winter), who has designs on being the President someday.
Unwilling to let on that he still holds a torch for Vanessa, Kumar attempts to get high during the flight and ends up getting himself and Harold mistaken for terrorists. Before the duo know what has hit them they have run afoul of Homeland Security agent Ron Fox (Rob Corddry), and are sharing a cell in Guantanamo Bay.
Desperate to escape their plight, the duo soon find themselves on the lam with Fox and the nations law enforcement officials in hot pursuit.
Harold and Kumar hope to make it to Texas in order to seek help from Colton as Harold thinks that due to their friendship and his connections he can get the duo out of their predicament. Kumar is all for this as not only is it the best way to get out of their situation but he secretly thinks he can get Vanessa to come back to him before it is too late.
Along the way the duo look to find help from their bizarre friends, and run into all manner of obstacles ranging from the Klan, Rednecks, and Neil Patrick Harris in a very funny cameo, and countless other bizarre people and situations.
The film is crude but if you were a fan of the last film, you will likely find this film very funny. The chemistry between Cho and Penn is good and it is fun to see the misadventures of the two best friends and hear them argue amongst themselves over their plight. Harold being the more level headed of the two is furious over the irresponsible Kumar and how he got them into this situation, but he is willing to stand by his friend to a point, which results in one of the fun moments in the film when the duo end up in a brothel in Texas.
Penn and Cho also seem to be having a good time playing the characters and despite the abundance of crude and drug related humor, there are some genuinely funny moments in the film and it is better than the first film in the series.
Those expecting a deep plot and characters will be disappointed, but if you came into this film looking for those elements, then you must have gotten into Kumar’s stash. That being said, take the film for what it is, and enjoyable if light piece of comedy, and you are likely to be glad that you are along for the ride.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
I have had my issues with Spike Lee as a filmmaker over the years. It always seemed like his next film was the most “important” one, and that he didn’t make a film if it didn’t have something to say about race and the oppression of African Americans. Which in itself is not a problem, as long as that point isn’t laboured to the detriment of all other aspects of the film. My problem wasn’t the message, it was that a lot of the films were dull or just not that great.
I like Malcolm X to a point, but it is overlong and uneven. I think Do the Right Thing is a fine example of indie bravura, but also has faults. Of the rest, I really only rate 25th Hour and Inside Man, both of which are entertaining movies that move tentatively away from full on politics and therefore avoid the trap of being bombastic. In short, I’ve always wanted to like him as a director a lot more than I do.
The thing that drew me to BlacKkKlansman more than Lee, or the yet little known John David Washington, was the 100% dependable Adam Driver. I have yet to see a performance of his I didn’t like, and I’d heard that he was the standout of this film too, so it went on my list of must sees. And, yes, he is excellent, of course he is – there’s something about how easy and relaxed he can be within a character that is very rare. I’d suggest he is one of the very best male actors of that age group working today.
Now, obviously, it is entirely intentional that the two leads and eventual partners in the film are black and white… but the idea that this is a problem, or a thing at all, is not addressed as the only issue; in BlacKkKlansman it isn’t being black or white or anything else that defines you, it is what you do, what you say and what you stand for. And that idea is so crystal clear and well achieved that as an entertainment the film can then go anywhere it wants around that framework. Which it revels in doing.
It is both a good looking film and an exciting one; funny when it wants to be, smart all the time, and razor serious when it needs to be. A balancing act not to be sniffed at! And one that Lee has struggled with in the past. Here he nails the tone so well that it feels like his entire back catalogue was just a training exercise to get him to this point. I wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece, but it is a damn fine work of art on many levels.
Washington as the focus of the tale, which also functions perfectly as an undercover cop movie of basic intent, i.e. infiltrate the bad guys and take them down, is perfectly cast and believable from minute one. His chemistry with the insanely gorgeous and talented Laura Harrier is a highlight, especially watching them dance and move with absolute cool in those 70s clothes and hairstyles. This movie has serious style that leaves you in no doubt that the black sub-culture is where it’s at, and the stupid bigoted klansmen are shown up as ridiculous as much as dangerous.
Every trope and icon of the Blacksploitation era is referenced and reclaimed as cool. Perhaps to a degree I am not aware of, as I’ve only seen one or two obvious examples in my time. We are given the tease to follow the notion that racism of this kind was a thing of the past, specifically related to the 70s and now it’s better in many ways. Before we are hit with the hammer blow of realisation at the very end of the film, where a juxtaposition of fantasy and horrific reality collide to magnificently shocking and depressing effect.
I felt after seeing it that I had been cleverly schooled. As in, I’m glad you enjoyed this, now go away and really think about it… and it worked, because I have tried to think about it more than I have before. And feel just that little bit more educated to a problem that is worldwide, but has never really felt directly part of my world.
Discussing anything related to the BLM movement in 2020 feels important and complicated in so many ways. It is an emotive subject that I’d feel I mostly want to avoid for fear of saying the wrong thing. Even though the basic idea of human rights and basic rights for all people has always been a no brainer; prejudice and hate crimes and fear are wrong, and we collectively must do whatever we can to educate ourselves and others not to make the mistakes of the past. Can a movie do that? No of course not, but it can open the door to dialogue that might not have happened otherwise.
Lee isn’t scared of what you think of this film, or any argument you may have against it. He knows his subject, and you feel that confidence in every scene. He doesn’t want to lecture you, or scream at you in despair, he wants to tell you an entertaining story that comes with a whole side discussion if you want it. Which is so much more powerful than any tactic he has tried before. And I think it works. I’d recommend anyone watch this, without hesitation.
I like Malcolm X to a point, but it is overlong and uneven. I think Do the Right Thing is a fine example of indie bravura, but also has faults. Of the rest, I really only rate 25th Hour and Inside Man, both of which are entertaining movies that move tentatively away from full on politics and therefore avoid the trap of being bombastic. In short, I’ve always wanted to like him as a director a lot more than I do.
The thing that drew me to BlacKkKlansman more than Lee, or the yet little known John David Washington, was the 100% dependable Adam Driver. I have yet to see a performance of his I didn’t like, and I’d heard that he was the standout of this film too, so it went on my list of must sees. And, yes, he is excellent, of course he is – there’s something about how easy and relaxed he can be within a character that is very rare. I’d suggest he is one of the very best male actors of that age group working today.
Now, obviously, it is entirely intentional that the two leads and eventual partners in the film are black and white… but the idea that this is a problem, or a thing at all, is not addressed as the only issue; in BlacKkKlansman it isn’t being black or white or anything else that defines you, it is what you do, what you say and what you stand for. And that idea is so crystal clear and well achieved that as an entertainment the film can then go anywhere it wants around that framework. Which it revels in doing.
It is both a good looking film and an exciting one; funny when it wants to be, smart all the time, and razor serious when it needs to be. A balancing act not to be sniffed at! And one that Lee has struggled with in the past. Here he nails the tone so well that it feels like his entire back catalogue was just a training exercise to get him to this point. I wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece, but it is a damn fine work of art on many levels.
Washington as the focus of the tale, which also functions perfectly as an undercover cop movie of basic intent, i.e. infiltrate the bad guys and take them down, is perfectly cast and believable from minute one. His chemistry with the insanely gorgeous and talented Laura Harrier is a highlight, especially watching them dance and move with absolute cool in those 70s clothes and hairstyles. This movie has serious style that leaves you in no doubt that the black sub-culture is where it’s at, and the stupid bigoted klansmen are shown up as ridiculous as much as dangerous.
Every trope and icon of the Blacksploitation era is referenced and reclaimed as cool. Perhaps to a degree I am not aware of, as I’ve only seen one or two obvious examples in my time. We are given the tease to follow the notion that racism of this kind was a thing of the past, specifically related to the 70s and now it’s better in many ways. Before we are hit with the hammer blow of realisation at the very end of the film, where a juxtaposition of fantasy and horrific reality collide to magnificently shocking and depressing effect.
I felt after seeing it that I had been cleverly schooled. As in, I’m glad you enjoyed this, now go away and really think about it… and it worked, because I have tried to think about it more than I have before. And feel just that little bit more educated to a problem that is worldwide, but has never really felt directly part of my world.
Discussing anything related to the BLM movement in 2020 feels important and complicated in so many ways. It is an emotive subject that I’d feel I mostly want to avoid for fear of saying the wrong thing. Even though the basic idea of human rights and basic rights for all people has always been a no brainer; prejudice and hate crimes and fear are wrong, and we collectively must do whatever we can to educate ourselves and others not to make the mistakes of the past. Can a movie do that? No of course not, but it can open the door to dialogue that might not have happened otherwise.
Lee isn’t scared of what you think of this film, or any argument you may have against it. He knows his subject, and you feel that confidence in every scene. He doesn’t want to lecture you, or scream at you in despair, he wants to tell you an entertaining story that comes with a whole side discussion if you want it. Which is so much more powerful than any tactic he has tried before. And I think it works. I’d recommend anyone watch this, without hesitation.
Fred (860 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Red Dead Redemption 2 in Video Games
Dec 4, 2018
Beautiful humongous world (5 more)
Tons to do. Hours & hours of stuff.
Great acting and characters
Lots of Easter eggs
Wonderful music
Great story
That feckin robin (2 more)
Big world means lots of riding
New Austin is kind of dead
Rockstar let my mama's baby grow up to be a cowboy
Yes, I'm a little late to this party, but I wanted to play until I completed the game & today, I finally did. I've also played a few hours of the online beta, but I'll get to that later.
Let's start with what this game is about. It's an open world game, set in the old west. It's set before the events of Red Dead Redemption. In that game, you played as John Marston. In that game, John was a man trying to change his life. He was a criminal, a thief, a murderer, but he's gone straight In this game, you play as Arthur Morgan. A criminal in the same gang with John. He is a bad guy, no doubt. But throughout the game, he has many opportunities to do good. Of course, you can play him that way, or you can play him as a heartless bastard. This will effect some of the story, the dialogue & the ending of the game. I played the game as if Arthur was a good guy inside & the ending I got was very satisfying, very emotional.
For most of the story, you're on the run with your gang, setting up different camps throughout the map, evading rival gangs & the law. This is a great way to get to know the world, however, you're free to explore most of the map freely. It is enormous & gorgeous. Some of the best scenery I've seen in a game. Sometimes you will really feel you're living in a real world. And that's the greatest thing about this game. The immersion. You really feel like you're living the life of your character. And Rockstar did that by making you take care of your character. You shave, bathe, eat & take care of your horse. Yes, you name your horse, feed it, brush it, pet it. You get very attached to it, as it is your main way of getting around. If your horse dies, it's gone. And believe me, it hurts to lose your horse.
Rockstar fills the game with so many missions, side activities, random encounters & hidden Easter eggs that it will take you weeks to do them all. I've been playing since day one, an average of 6 to 7 hours a day, & today, 5 & a half weeks later, I finally got 100% in the game. To be honest, when I first started, I spent lots of time just riding around, finding activities & hidden goodies & enjoying the scenery. Like most of their games, there's a supernatural element to some things as well as supernatural encounters. Steampunk, monsters, etc... a little bit of everything. Some encounters are funny, some terrifying, all of them cool.
I think what makes this game different & better than it's predecessor is the characters themselves. I'm not talking about the main characters alone, I'm talking about the people who litter the world. In RDR, some of the characters were silly, off-the-wall & unnatural. They were cartoonish. In RDR2, the people are real. Some may be weird and a bit crazy, but they never feel fake. They never feel like a character. Because of this, the world lives. They breathe life into it with every interaction. From the
Civil War veterans to the blind beggar, to the racist jackass standing on the corner in Saint Denis handing out pro-white pamphlets. They really make you feel like you're there. Again, immersion.
Some of the things you can do besides the missions are rob people, trains, coaches, banks. Another thing is hunting. Hunting can be a great way to make money. During the game, there are many challenges that you can undertake as well. There's are 9 categories with 10 challenges to each that can be done at your leisure. I left a lot of these to do last. I honestly didn't think I'd be able to do some of them. They just seemed ridiculous. But funny enough, I did about 50 of the last challenges within 2 days. And when I finished, I expected my 100% trophy to pop up. But it didn't. I was at 99%. What the? Looking at my completion list, there was something under the collections section that said unknown collection. Searching the internet, I found that most sites didn't have it listed. But I finally found a site that did. The last collection was the hunting challenge. And this brings us to that feckin robin.
Okay, let me explain. The hunting challenge you are given is to kill 5 different lists of animals. Each animal must be a perfect carcass. Which means, they have to be of perfect quality before you kill them & you must not damage them while killing them. Well, all of these animals are small animals. And most of them are small birds. It was fairly easy to get most of these animals. But there was one that was a huge pain in the ass. Can you guess what it was? Yes, a robin. A small, fast bird that is so rare, there are pages & videos galore on finding one. Most of which as total bollocks. How do I know? I spent over 7 hours trying to find one. Going to all these spots, seeing 3 of them total, shooting one & ruining it's carcass, & missing the other 2 based on their disappearance through the trees. I was really going to give up. So close, but so far. Luckily, using some people's hints & coming up with my own, I finally figured out how to get him. And it then took me 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes with 7 hours of wasted time. I am putting this as a negative, because it was really ridiculous to try to hunt this thing. So aggrivating. I understand if they want to make something rare, but it's just not nice. I felt like Rockstar was pulling a joke on it's players.
But anyway, this still doesn't bring down my score of the game. It's one of the greatest games I've ever played. But Rockstar has many perfect 10 games under it's belt in my opinion, including RDR. Is this game better. Yes, I think so. But it's oh so close.
A quick word on RDR online. It's only in beta, so I can't give a true review yet. However, I'm finding it so much fun doing missions with other people. Of course, there are jackasses going around shooting people for no reason. It gives no benefit to do so. Not all of the features are in there yet, but I will be playing when it goes to full online & will giv an update.
Let's start with what this game is about. It's an open world game, set in the old west. It's set before the events of Red Dead Redemption. In that game, you played as John Marston. In that game, John was a man trying to change his life. He was a criminal, a thief, a murderer, but he's gone straight In this game, you play as Arthur Morgan. A criminal in the same gang with John. He is a bad guy, no doubt. But throughout the game, he has many opportunities to do good. Of course, you can play him that way, or you can play him as a heartless bastard. This will effect some of the story, the dialogue & the ending of the game. I played the game as if Arthur was a good guy inside & the ending I got was very satisfying, very emotional.
For most of the story, you're on the run with your gang, setting up different camps throughout the map, evading rival gangs & the law. This is a great way to get to know the world, however, you're free to explore most of the map freely. It is enormous & gorgeous. Some of the best scenery I've seen in a game. Sometimes you will really feel you're living in a real world. And that's the greatest thing about this game. The immersion. You really feel like you're living the life of your character. And Rockstar did that by making you take care of your character. You shave, bathe, eat & take care of your horse. Yes, you name your horse, feed it, brush it, pet it. You get very attached to it, as it is your main way of getting around. If your horse dies, it's gone. And believe me, it hurts to lose your horse.
Rockstar fills the game with so many missions, side activities, random encounters & hidden Easter eggs that it will take you weeks to do them all. I've been playing since day one, an average of 6 to 7 hours a day, & today, 5 & a half weeks later, I finally got 100% in the game. To be honest, when I first started, I spent lots of time just riding around, finding activities & hidden goodies & enjoying the scenery. Like most of their games, there's a supernatural element to some things as well as supernatural encounters. Steampunk, monsters, etc... a little bit of everything. Some encounters are funny, some terrifying, all of them cool.
I think what makes this game different & better than it's predecessor is the characters themselves. I'm not talking about the main characters alone, I'm talking about the people who litter the world. In RDR, some of the characters were silly, off-the-wall & unnatural. They were cartoonish. In RDR2, the people are real. Some may be weird and a bit crazy, but they never feel fake. They never feel like a character. Because of this, the world lives. They breathe life into it with every interaction. From the
Civil War veterans to the blind beggar, to the racist jackass standing on the corner in Saint Denis handing out pro-white pamphlets. They really make you feel like you're there. Again, immersion.
Some of the things you can do besides the missions are rob people, trains, coaches, banks. Another thing is hunting. Hunting can be a great way to make money. During the game, there are many challenges that you can undertake as well. There's are 9 categories with 10 challenges to each that can be done at your leisure. I left a lot of these to do last. I honestly didn't think I'd be able to do some of them. They just seemed ridiculous. But funny enough, I did about 50 of the last challenges within 2 days. And when I finished, I expected my 100% trophy to pop up. But it didn't. I was at 99%. What the? Looking at my completion list, there was something under the collections section that said unknown collection. Searching the internet, I found that most sites didn't have it listed. But I finally found a site that did. The last collection was the hunting challenge. And this brings us to that feckin robin.
Okay, let me explain. The hunting challenge you are given is to kill 5 different lists of animals. Each animal must be a perfect carcass. Which means, they have to be of perfect quality before you kill them & you must not damage them while killing them. Well, all of these animals are small animals. And most of them are small birds. It was fairly easy to get most of these animals. But there was one that was a huge pain in the ass. Can you guess what it was? Yes, a robin. A small, fast bird that is so rare, there are pages & videos galore on finding one. Most of which as total bollocks. How do I know? I spent over 7 hours trying to find one. Going to all these spots, seeing 3 of them total, shooting one & ruining it's carcass, & missing the other 2 based on their disappearance through the trees. I was really going to give up. So close, but so far. Luckily, using some people's hints & coming up with my own, I finally figured out how to get him. And it then took me 15 minutes. Yes, 15 minutes with 7 hours of wasted time. I am putting this as a negative, because it was really ridiculous to try to hunt this thing. So aggrivating. I understand if they want to make something rare, but it's just not nice. I felt like Rockstar was pulling a joke on it's players.
But anyway, this still doesn't bring down my score of the game. It's one of the greatest games I've ever played. But Rockstar has many perfect 10 games under it's belt in my opinion, including RDR. Is this game better. Yes, I think so. But it's oh so close.
A quick word on RDR online. It's only in beta, so I can't give a true review yet. However, I'm finding it so much fun doing missions with other people. Of course, there are jackasses going around shooting people for no reason. It gives no benefit to do so. Not all of the features are in there yet, but I will be playing when it goes to full online & will giv an update.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Lee Ronaldo recommended Blind Joe Death by John Fahey in Music (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Mar 1, 2019
Doesn't Quite Succeed In What It Was Attempting To Do
Liam Neeson has stated that COLD PURSUIT is going to be his last action film. And, if that is the case, he certainly picked an interesting one to go out on.
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
My relationship with Laurel & Hardy is a tentative one. I do enjoy their short films, full of ingenuity and genuinely funny moments. But, they’d be down the list a bit for me on the greatest black and white comedy stars – Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, then the Marx Brothers maybe, then the slapstick duo next, maybe. It’s not that I don’t think they are great! They are, they definitely are. I just can’t sit down and take to much of them at once. Maybe because their schtick is very stagey, vaudevillian even, rather than cinematic. And that is because they were primary stage actors and clowns. Not necessarily in that order.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021 (Updated Sep 29, 2021)
Miss Scarlett at the Airport with the Jet Engine.
“Game Night” is an American comedy film starring Jason Bateman (“Horrible Bosses”, “Central Intelligence“) as Max and Rachel McAdams (“Spotlight“, “Doctor Strange“) as Annie: two hyper-competitive professionals who invite other couples around to their house for a weekly night of charades and board games. The regulars are long-term couple Kevin and Michelle (Lamorne Morris and Kylie Bunbury) and complete buffoon Ryan (Billy Magnussen, “The Big Short“) and his revolving door of generally vacant girlfriends. Estranged from the group, after his divorce, is the creepy police officer Gary (Jesse Plemons, “The Post“, “American Made“) who lives next door.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019
Young ensemble cast actually ensembling! (1 more)
Adam Driver on great form
After 42 years - does it leave with a bang or a whimper?
This review will be spoiler-free.
And so we come to the grand conclusion of George Lucas's nine-film vision, and someone can at last put the multi-limbed behemoth in a coffin and nail down the lid. It's certainly been a bumpy ride for this latest trilogy under Disney's stewardship, with rabidly negative fan-boys getting very hot under the collar about 'their baby' being despoiled by the evil empire!
We left the end of the last film with the Rebellion in tatters, reduced to a tiny fleet of ships. (It was truly fortunate that our key players were not on any of the lost ships wasn't it?) Rey (Daisy Ridley) is progressing her Jedi-training under the guidance of a new teacher. But the presence of Kylo-Ren (Adam Driver) is forever there, and their long-distance "psycho-chats" are becoming ever more 'substantial' as the bond between them grows.
But a dark presence from the past has returned, and both are drawn to it in different ways. A showdown between the forces of good and evil is inevitable.
The pace of the film is frenetic and totally exhausting. The first 30 minutes hardly pause for a breath as we zap around from location to location. Where the film really worked better for me was in the quieter and more reflective moments. Kylo Ren is in many of these moments: one, where he visits a very dark place, is well done; and one, where he receives a special visitor, is an interlude that is surprisingly effective. Adam Driver really is in excellent form here; he's never been my favourite actor in the world, but here truly impresses.
One of the problems of the first two films in the trilogy is that it sent all the young leads off in multiple different directions. The result was that there was very little of the interplay of the first films (between Han, Luke and Leia) that made them so memorable. Here that issue is rectified and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega) develop a close onscreen bond with much resultant banter. Ridley's Rey also gets thrown into the mix, with the result that a group hug feels at last normal and right. It's bizarre, but you suddenly realise what was missing here when - FOR THE FIRST TIME - two of the characters get introduced to each other!
A welcome inclusion is that of the late Carrie Fisher as Leia. It's actually extraordinary that they had enough unused footage to be able to weave in a full role for the character into the story. It never feels forced and there were only a few 'hugs' where I found myself thinking "I bet that's not her".
C3PO (Anthony Daniels) also gets much more screen time and has some really nice and comical scenes in here. And a new uni-wheeled robot (voiced by director J.J. Abrams) adds to both the comic potential (and the available Disney merchandise!).
One of the new characters on show is the physically impressive Naomi Ackie as the horse (or something!) riding Jannah. But she's given little to do in the plot.
Elsewhere, there are a whole bunch of famous faces cropping up. Watching the end credit roll is an "OH! That was who that was" revelation in some cases. I won't list them here, since it is delicious to go in blind and have the surprise of seeing them. But some are famous actors from screen and TV, and one is an Abrams' favourite from a past TV glory. The biggest cheer though was reserved for a certain X-wing fighter near the end of the film. A blink-and-you'll-miss-him moment, it was a white-haired appearance to treasure.
What the film does very well (or very badly if you read some reviews) is hark back to the glories of the earlier films, and particularly Episodes IV to VI. Many places are revisited or scenes re-enacted until the place is just SOGGY with nostalgia (to use an old Tom Lehrer line). Although greatly contrived, I enjoyed these scenes immensely.
Making maximum use of the opportunity, John Williams bashes out theme after theme from most of the nine films. The soundtrack really is a "John Williams Greatest Hits" collection. Williams also actually gets a cameo as well - apparently as an eye-patch wearing bar-tender in the Nepalese-like town, though I must admit I missed it. (I've seen comment online that this is his first on-screen appearance: actually not true... he was conducting the orchestra in the "bird-lady's concert hall" in "Home Alone 2").
There are also a huge number of similarities I saw in certain scenes with other cinematic releases outside of the Star Wars universe:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - in two particular scenes;
"Dunkirk" - but done properly!
"Dora and the Lost City of Gold" - it doesn't make any physics sense here either!
"Power Rangers" - just because of one of the characters - you'll know the one
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" - but to say more would be a spoiler!
And there are probably others I've forgotten!
One of my key issues with "The Last Jedi" was the way in which it invented mad-cap tasks, objects and people that had to be completed/found for the plot to be moved forwards. A massive and pointless diversion to a casino planet, for example, was made just to get into a secure area of an imperial vessel: something in this film they 'just do'!
This movie also suffers to a degree from the disease of 'McGuffinitis'. Where's the beacon? There's a dagger that must be found; Where's the interpreter?; etc. It's all very formulaic. But at least in this case, there is a certain logical flow that follows within the plot.
The LP soundtrack of "Star Wars" got me into a lifelong love of film music. One of the last tracks on the soundtrack of the first film was called "The Last Battle". Well, THAT wasn't true! There have been so many space battles since then that we've all lost count. But we all knew this would build to a doozy of a finale, and the film doesn't disappoint. There is utter mayhem in the skies: WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE HENCHMEN'S FAMILIES?
It all drives to a satisfying ending for me and feels like a good closure to the saga. Is it perfect? No, not at all. It really sets itself with too much to do, and then tries to do it all within the available running time. The film will - and has by looking at the volume of IMDB 1* ratings - upset a lot of the fan-boys. But, you know what? Stuff 'em! The film should be judged on how it makes YOU feel as a standalone piece of entertainment, rather than as a part of some sort of pseudo-religious cult. And I personally think Abrams did a pretty decent job here of trying to please most of the people most of the time.
(For the full graphical review, please visit One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019/ )
And so we come to the grand conclusion of George Lucas's nine-film vision, and someone can at last put the multi-limbed behemoth in a coffin and nail down the lid. It's certainly been a bumpy ride for this latest trilogy under Disney's stewardship, with rabidly negative fan-boys getting very hot under the collar about 'their baby' being despoiled by the evil empire!
We left the end of the last film with the Rebellion in tatters, reduced to a tiny fleet of ships. (It was truly fortunate that our key players were not on any of the lost ships wasn't it?) Rey (Daisy Ridley) is progressing her Jedi-training under the guidance of a new teacher. But the presence of Kylo-Ren (Adam Driver) is forever there, and their long-distance "psycho-chats" are becoming ever more 'substantial' as the bond between them grows.
But a dark presence from the past has returned, and both are drawn to it in different ways. A showdown between the forces of good and evil is inevitable.
The pace of the film is frenetic and totally exhausting. The first 30 minutes hardly pause for a breath as we zap around from location to location. Where the film really worked better for me was in the quieter and more reflective moments. Kylo Ren is in many of these moments: one, where he visits a very dark place, is well done; and one, where he receives a special visitor, is an interlude that is surprisingly effective. Adam Driver really is in excellent form here; he's never been my favourite actor in the world, but here truly impresses.
One of the problems of the first two films in the trilogy is that it sent all the young leads off in multiple different directions. The result was that there was very little of the interplay of the first films (between Han, Luke and Leia) that made them so memorable. Here that issue is rectified and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega) develop a close onscreen bond with much resultant banter. Ridley's Rey also gets thrown into the mix, with the result that a group hug feels at last normal and right. It's bizarre, but you suddenly realise what was missing here when - FOR THE FIRST TIME - two of the characters get introduced to each other!
A welcome inclusion is that of the late Carrie Fisher as Leia. It's actually extraordinary that they had enough unused footage to be able to weave in a full role for the character into the story. It never feels forced and there were only a few 'hugs' where I found myself thinking "I bet that's not her".
C3PO (Anthony Daniels) also gets much more screen time and has some really nice and comical scenes in here. And a new uni-wheeled robot (voiced by director J.J. Abrams) adds to both the comic potential (and the available Disney merchandise!).
One of the new characters on show is the physically impressive Naomi Ackie as the horse (or something!) riding Jannah. But she's given little to do in the plot.
Elsewhere, there are a whole bunch of famous faces cropping up. Watching the end credit roll is an "OH! That was who that was" revelation in some cases. I won't list them here, since it is delicious to go in blind and have the surprise of seeing them. But some are famous actors from screen and TV, and one is an Abrams' favourite from a past TV glory. The biggest cheer though was reserved for a certain X-wing fighter near the end of the film. A blink-and-you'll-miss-him moment, it was a white-haired appearance to treasure.
What the film does very well (or very badly if you read some reviews) is hark back to the glories of the earlier films, and particularly Episodes IV to VI. Many places are revisited or scenes re-enacted until the place is just SOGGY with nostalgia (to use an old Tom Lehrer line). Although greatly contrived, I enjoyed these scenes immensely.
Making maximum use of the opportunity, John Williams bashes out theme after theme from most of the nine films. The soundtrack really is a "John Williams Greatest Hits" collection. Williams also actually gets a cameo as well - apparently as an eye-patch wearing bar-tender in the Nepalese-like town, though I must admit I missed it. (I've seen comment online that this is his first on-screen appearance: actually not true... he was conducting the orchestra in the "bird-lady's concert hall" in "Home Alone 2").
There are also a huge number of similarities I saw in certain scenes with other cinematic releases outside of the Star Wars universe:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - in two particular scenes;
"Dunkirk" - but done properly!
"Dora and the Lost City of Gold" - it doesn't make any physics sense here either!
"Power Rangers" - just because of one of the characters - you'll know the one
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" - but to say more would be a spoiler!
And there are probably others I've forgotten!
One of my key issues with "The Last Jedi" was the way in which it invented mad-cap tasks, objects and people that had to be completed/found for the plot to be moved forwards. A massive and pointless diversion to a casino planet, for example, was made just to get into a secure area of an imperial vessel: something in this film they 'just do'!
This movie also suffers to a degree from the disease of 'McGuffinitis'. Where's the beacon? There's a dagger that must be found; Where's the interpreter?; etc. It's all very formulaic. But at least in this case, there is a certain logical flow that follows within the plot.
The LP soundtrack of "Star Wars" got me into a lifelong love of film music. One of the last tracks on the soundtrack of the first film was called "The Last Battle". Well, THAT wasn't true! There have been so many space battles since then that we've all lost count. But we all knew this would build to a doozy of a finale, and the film doesn't disappoint. There is utter mayhem in the skies: WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE HENCHMEN'S FAMILIES?
It all drives to a satisfying ending for me and feels like a good closure to the saga. Is it perfect? No, not at all. It really sets itself with too much to do, and then tries to do it all within the available running time. The film will - and has by looking at the volume of IMDB 1* ratings - upset a lot of the fan-boys. But, you know what? Stuff 'em! The film should be judged on how it makes YOU feel as a standalone piece of entertainment, rather than as a part of some sort of pseudo-religious cult. And I personally think Abrams did a pretty decent job here of trying to please most of the people most of the time.
(For the full graphical review, please visit One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019/ )
