Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 21, 2018
For the "true" Potter fan
It is a misnomer to call FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD a "Harry Potter" movie. True, it is a film that takes place in the "Harry Potter-verse", but it should, more accurately, be called an "Albus Dumbledore" movie.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Limitless (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After years of hearing women saying this I can now agree that Bradley Cooper does indeed have beautiful eyes. If you don’t believe me go see his new movie Limitless based on the 2001 novel The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn. The movie has so many close-ups of Bradley’s face that you find yourself staring into these blue orbs of beauty, approximately 6 feet across, that utterly mesmerize you and take you to a peaceful place where mice, cats and dogs get along.
But enough about his incredibly enchanting eyes let’s talk about the movie.
The thriller Limitless is about an unemployed struggling writer Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) who, after being dumped by his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish), bumps into his ex-brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth). After talking over a few beers, Vernon realizes that Eddie needs help and gives him one pill of a supposedly FDA-approved, soon-to-be-released brain boosting drug called NZT. Eddie is skeptical but upon returning to his apartment building he tries the pill. And. It. Is. Awesome!
The drug allows a person to access every bit of information locked away in their brain. It gets all the neurons in their brain kicked into high gear, allows them to learn anything very quickly, makes a person more focused, perceptive, confident, driven and gives them a boost of energy. So when Eddie takes the NZT pill (close up) he helps his landlord’s attractive wife write her term paper, sleeps with her, cleans his apartment (close up) and writes a good chunk of his book for his publisher (close up). The next morning he is back to his normal self, so he goes to Vernon for more pills, events happen and Eddie ends up with a lot more pills plus a large sum of money.
With the help of NZT he begins to turn his life around. He finishes his book, gets in shape, gets a haircut, still not clean-shaven though (don’t look at the stubble, look at his eyes), learns new things, makes new friends, has lots of nooky (because women dig smart guys), travels and multiple close ups. But soon he realizes that he wants to do something meaningful with his life. As he works to achieve his dream and also get back with his ex-girlfriend, he crosses paths with a mysterious man, Russian mobster Gennady (Andrew Howard), shifty lawyers, police, corporate fat cats like Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), gets more random close ups and soon starts running out of pills. Will he do something meaningful with his life? Will he jump off of a building? Can his dreamy eyes get any bluer?
Right from the start the movie grabs your attention by throwing you into the action (and blue eyes) and it gently holds it in a soft blue embrace until the end. The movie has an intelligent and, at the appropriate times, humorous dialogue that flowed very smoothly and naturally. Robert De Niro and Bradley Cooper definitely brought their A game (Bradley’s eyes A+) and their on-screen chemistry is one of the best I have seen. Both Abbie Cornish and Andrew Howard were great throughout the film but each of them had their own individual scenes where they really shined. There are some plot holes but they do not detract from this very enjoyable film.
But enough about his incredibly enchanting eyes let’s talk about the movie.
The thriller Limitless is about an unemployed struggling writer Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) who, after being dumped by his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish), bumps into his ex-brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth). After talking over a few beers, Vernon realizes that Eddie needs help and gives him one pill of a supposedly FDA-approved, soon-to-be-released brain boosting drug called NZT. Eddie is skeptical but upon returning to his apartment building he tries the pill. And. It. Is. Awesome!
The drug allows a person to access every bit of information locked away in their brain. It gets all the neurons in their brain kicked into high gear, allows them to learn anything very quickly, makes a person more focused, perceptive, confident, driven and gives them a boost of energy. So when Eddie takes the NZT pill (close up) he helps his landlord’s attractive wife write her term paper, sleeps with her, cleans his apartment (close up) and writes a good chunk of his book for his publisher (close up). The next morning he is back to his normal self, so he goes to Vernon for more pills, events happen and Eddie ends up with a lot more pills plus a large sum of money.
With the help of NZT he begins to turn his life around. He finishes his book, gets in shape, gets a haircut, still not clean-shaven though (don’t look at the stubble, look at his eyes), learns new things, makes new friends, has lots of nooky (because women dig smart guys), travels and multiple close ups. But soon he realizes that he wants to do something meaningful with his life. As he works to achieve his dream and also get back with his ex-girlfriend, he crosses paths with a mysterious man, Russian mobster Gennady (Andrew Howard), shifty lawyers, police, corporate fat cats like Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), gets more random close ups and soon starts running out of pills. Will he do something meaningful with his life? Will he jump off of a building? Can his dreamy eyes get any bluer?
Right from the start the movie grabs your attention by throwing you into the action (and blue eyes) and it gently holds it in a soft blue embrace until the end. The movie has an intelligent and, at the appropriate times, humorous dialogue that flowed very smoothly and naturally. Robert De Niro and Bradley Cooper definitely brought their A game (Bradley’s eyes A+) and their on-screen chemistry is one of the best I have seen. Both Abbie Cornish and Andrew Howard were great throughout the film but each of them had their own individual scenes where they really shined. There are some plot holes but they do not detract from this very enjoyable film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Tusk (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
To legions of his many fans, writer, director, producer, and podcaster Kevin Smith is a man fanboys find easy to root for. His films have become pop-culture gold to comic book, science fiction, and general geekdom fans the world over. Smith has built a career on independent films with characters that are as real as they are raw and raunchy. The crude nature of his jokes often put him in a “love them or hate them” category for many critics as it is definitely not a style that is for the masses. That being said, the films are witty, honest, and most times relatable, no matter how bad the situations and the characters become. Recently, Smith took a detour to the darker side with his film “Red State” that looked at a group of kids who became the victims of a fanatical cult leader and his followers.
While Smith was reportedly working to get funding for “Clerks 3”, an idea was presented to him during his Smodcast about a guy in rural Canada who is offering free room and board to anybody who would live with him on the condition that they wear a walrus costume from time to time. Buoyed by his followers on Twitter, Smith decided to make a horror film based on the situation even after learning that the incident in question was the result of a prank by a comedian.
In his new film Tusk, we are introduced to a successful podcaster named Wallace (Justin Long), who along with his costar Teddy (Haley Joel Osment), run a show called the Not See Party, whose name leads to several double takes and comical and uncomfortable situations down the line. Wallace’s girlfriend Ally (Genesis Rodriguez) wishes to accompany Wallace to his trip up to Canada in order to interview someone for a show.
Since Teddy is not a flyer, Wallace travels to locations to interview people and then in turn tells the stories to Teddy so the two can comment about them on air. Ally longs for the Wallace of old who was a struggling comedian as she believes that the successful Wallace is not that fun to be around as he no longer makes her a priority in life. Wallace admits as much when he discloses a series of infidelities to Teddy and dismisses them as nothing more than clearing of the head while traveling or before doing a live show for an audience.
Upon arriving in Manitoba, Wallace learns that his intended interview has befallen tragedy and faced without a topic for his next show, Wallace is intrigued by a flyer from a man offering room and board as well as plenty of stories.
Wallace makes contact with the individual and travels two hours into rural Manitoba at night to meet the man at his expansive estate. Upon meeting Howard Howe (Michael Parks), Wallace is captivated by the elderly wheelchair-bound gentleman and his tales of life at sea including meeting Ernest Hemingway during the war. As Wallace sat spellbound by the tales Howard is telling him, he soon falls unconscious as a result of being drugged by his host. Things take a very dark turn the following morning when Howard learns that he has lost a leg of which Howard proclaims was the tragic result of a spider bite. Things become a living nightmare as Wallace quickly learns just how devious and diabolical Michael’s plans are for him and trapped in a remote area his humanity and faith are slowly stripped away by the situation he finds himself in.
Teddy and Ally travel to Manitoba due to a frantic call Wallace makes and not finding much assistance from the local authorities, turn to quirky and eccentric former homicide detective Guy LaPointe (Johnny Depp), who fears that Wallace has become the victim of an elusive killer whom LaPointe has been trying to find for years.
What follows is a dark, disturbing, and utterly captivating thriller in a race against time with the very essence and humanity of Wallace hanging in the balance.
While Smith inserts his trademark humor into the film, this is very much a psychological thriller and not a comedy. Depp does a fantastic job and is almost unrecognizable in his role as a homicide detective who is scheduled to appear in a subsequent film currently shooting. While it seemed a bit of a stretch that Ally would want be involved with Wallace, there was nonetheless a good bit of chemistry between them even though the majority of their scenes are shown via flashback.
Long and Parks propel the story as it is pretty much about the dramatic struggle between the two of them. Parks is captivating and creepy while the brash Wallace gets a lesson in humanity and what truly matters in life. While some will no doubt find the subject matter highly disturbing and may be quick to dismiss the film, this is one of the more clever and enjoyable thrillers in recent years and proves that Smith is a filmmaker capable of doing things other than his trademark comedies and should be encouraged to continue to broaden his horizons.
As it stands the film should delight fans of Smith but also allows him to expand his audience into new areas as this truly is one of the more memorable and entertaining films of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/09/19/tusk/
While Smith was reportedly working to get funding for “Clerks 3”, an idea was presented to him during his Smodcast about a guy in rural Canada who is offering free room and board to anybody who would live with him on the condition that they wear a walrus costume from time to time. Buoyed by his followers on Twitter, Smith decided to make a horror film based on the situation even after learning that the incident in question was the result of a prank by a comedian.
In his new film Tusk, we are introduced to a successful podcaster named Wallace (Justin Long), who along with his costar Teddy (Haley Joel Osment), run a show called the Not See Party, whose name leads to several double takes and comical and uncomfortable situations down the line. Wallace’s girlfriend Ally (Genesis Rodriguez) wishes to accompany Wallace to his trip up to Canada in order to interview someone for a show.
Since Teddy is not a flyer, Wallace travels to locations to interview people and then in turn tells the stories to Teddy so the two can comment about them on air. Ally longs for the Wallace of old who was a struggling comedian as she believes that the successful Wallace is not that fun to be around as he no longer makes her a priority in life. Wallace admits as much when he discloses a series of infidelities to Teddy and dismisses them as nothing more than clearing of the head while traveling or before doing a live show for an audience.
Upon arriving in Manitoba, Wallace learns that his intended interview has befallen tragedy and faced without a topic for his next show, Wallace is intrigued by a flyer from a man offering room and board as well as plenty of stories.
Wallace makes contact with the individual and travels two hours into rural Manitoba at night to meet the man at his expansive estate. Upon meeting Howard Howe (Michael Parks), Wallace is captivated by the elderly wheelchair-bound gentleman and his tales of life at sea including meeting Ernest Hemingway during the war. As Wallace sat spellbound by the tales Howard is telling him, he soon falls unconscious as a result of being drugged by his host. Things take a very dark turn the following morning when Howard learns that he has lost a leg of which Howard proclaims was the tragic result of a spider bite. Things become a living nightmare as Wallace quickly learns just how devious and diabolical Michael’s plans are for him and trapped in a remote area his humanity and faith are slowly stripped away by the situation he finds himself in.
Teddy and Ally travel to Manitoba due to a frantic call Wallace makes and not finding much assistance from the local authorities, turn to quirky and eccentric former homicide detective Guy LaPointe (Johnny Depp), who fears that Wallace has become the victim of an elusive killer whom LaPointe has been trying to find for years.
What follows is a dark, disturbing, and utterly captivating thriller in a race against time with the very essence and humanity of Wallace hanging in the balance.
While Smith inserts his trademark humor into the film, this is very much a psychological thriller and not a comedy. Depp does a fantastic job and is almost unrecognizable in his role as a homicide detective who is scheduled to appear in a subsequent film currently shooting. While it seemed a bit of a stretch that Ally would want be involved with Wallace, there was nonetheless a good bit of chemistry between them even though the majority of their scenes are shown via flashback.
Long and Parks propel the story as it is pretty much about the dramatic struggle between the two of them. Parks is captivating and creepy while the brash Wallace gets a lesson in humanity and what truly matters in life. While some will no doubt find the subject matter highly disturbing and may be quick to dismiss the film, this is one of the more clever and enjoyable thrillers in recent years and proves that Smith is a filmmaker capable of doing things other than his trademark comedies and should be encouraged to continue to broaden his horizons.
As it stands the film should delight fans of Smith but also allows him to expand his audience into new areas as this truly is one of the more memorable and entertaining films of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/09/19/tusk/
Ronyell (38 KP) rated Tim Burton's Corpse Bride (2005) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
Boy Meets Dead Girl
When a young man named Victor Van Dort is engaged to a young woman named Victoria Everglot (Victor, Victoria, get it?) due to Victor's family, the Van Dorts wanting to get Victor to marry Victoria because they want to be in high society; while Victoria's parents, the Everglots, want Victoria to marry Victor in order to get more money from the Van Dorts, Victor ends up messing up his wedding rehearsals to Victoria and ends up going into the woods to practice his wedding vows. Unfortunately, Victor accidentally places his wedding ring on a bony finger that was embedded in the ground and he ends up being engaged to Emily, the Corpse Bride. Meanwhile, in the living world, a sly and diabolical gentlemen named Lord Barkis Bittern wants to take Victoria's hand in marriage in case Victor does not come back to the living world.
Can Victor get back to the world of the living and who will he choose: Victoria or Emily?
I have been watching many of Tim Burton's animated films and "Corpse Bride" happens to be one of his most ingenious works yet! I loved the fact that this movie was based off an ancient folktale about a man accidentally marrying a corpse as I love reading about folktales in general and this movie definitely has the ancient folktale feel to it. I also enjoyed seeing the two different worlds between the living world and the world of the dead as they contrast each other in a very unique way. In this case, the world of the living is seen as a dreary black and white world while the world of the dead is shown in a loud and colorful manner, which is surprising since you would expect to see the world of the dead as a dreary place while the world of the living is a colorful place. I also enjoyed the relationship shared between Victor and Emily, even though Victor at first didn't want to be in the world of the dead. Even though the idea of even communicating with a talking corpse is horrifying at best, this film managed to make the interactions between Emily and Victor be as charming as can be and I was able to really enjoy their innocent bantering with each other! I really loved the way that each voice actor portrayed the characters as they made them come to life, especially with the performance of Johnny Depp as Victor as he made Victor sound timid yet friendly at the same time. I really loved Helena Bonham Carter's performance as Emily the Corpse Bride as she was probably the most interesting character in the entire movie and I loved the way that Emily is so innocent and yet can be pretty frightening when she wants to be!
The only issue I had with this film was that I felt that the songs in this movie were not as memorable as "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and they didn't really get me to feel so much for the characters' situations since they weren't catchy or emotional enough. I also wished that the movie actually explored the characters a bit more like explain how Victoria's family got into financial troubles in the first place and what was Lord Barkis Bittern like as a character before he is introduced into this film.
Overall, "Corpse Bride" is a great film for anyone who is a huge fan of Tim Burton's dark comedy films and who loves watching films starring dead characters in general!
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/movie-review-corpse-bride-2005.html
Can Victor get back to the world of the living and who will he choose: Victoria or Emily?
I have been watching many of Tim Burton's animated films and "Corpse Bride" happens to be one of his most ingenious works yet! I loved the fact that this movie was based off an ancient folktale about a man accidentally marrying a corpse as I love reading about folktales in general and this movie definitely has the ancient folktale feel to it. I also enjoyed seeing the two different worlds between the living world and the world of the dead as they contrast each other in a very unique way. In this case, the world of the living is seen as a dreary black and white world while the world of the dead is shown in a loud and colorful manner, which is surprising since you would expect to see the world of the dead as a dreary place while the world of the living is a colorful place. I also enjoyed the relationship shared between Victor and Emily, even though Victor at first didn't want to be in the world of the dead. Even though the idea of even communicating with a talking corpse is horrifying at best, this film managed to make the interactions between Emily and Victor be as charming as can be and I was able to really enjoy their innocent bantering with each other! I really loved the way that each voice actor portrayed the characters as they made them come to life, especially with the performance of Johnny Depp as Victor as he made Victor sound timid yet friendly at the same time. I really loved Helena Bonham Carter's performance as Emily the Corpse Bride as she was probably the most interesting character in the entire movie and I loved the way that Emily is so innocent and yet can be pretty frightening when she wants to be!
The only issue I had with this film was that I felt that the songs in this movie were not as memorable as "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and they didn't really get me to feel so much for the characters' situations since they weren't catchy or emotional enough. I also wished that the movie actually explored the characters a bit more like explain how Victoria's family got into financial troubles in the first place and what was Lord Barkis Bittern like as a character before he is introduced into this film.
Overall, "Corpse Bride" is a great film for anyone who is a huge fan of Tim Burton's dark comedy films and who loves watching films starring dead characters in general!
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/movie-review-corpse-bride-2005.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Marvelous Cash Cows and How to Milk Them.
As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you’re reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were ‘amber-lit’ rather than ‘green-lit’, their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
A is for Artful
Contains spoilers, click to show
As with another of Tim Burton’s films, Sleepy Hollow, Alice in Wonderland strays significantly from the original material. And, in a vein similar to Sleepy Hollow, decapitation is a much-discussed topic.
Alice is introduced to the audience as a child who has strange dreams. In the subsequent scenes, an older Alice is seen in a carriage with her mother. She is unwittingly on her way to her engagement party, and she is fully expected to accept the offer of marriage from someone who seems quite ill-suited for her. “Your life will be perfect. It’s already been decided,” says her sister Margaret.
Elements of the engagement party offer foreshadowing for the alternate reality Alice soon finds herself in. Instead of accepting her suitor’s proposal, Alice runs away and follows a rabbit wearing a waistcoat into an exceptionally large rabbit hole. There, she is found falling with a variety of household objects, including one particularly friendly piano.
Once in Wonderland, Alice’s world has literally turned upside-down. She falls from her perch on the ceiling to the floor. Alice solves a puzzle of many locked doors, using the expected growing and shrinking mechanisms, and then she emerges into a strange topiary. There she is greeted by the rabbit and other residents of Wonderland, who argue whether this Alice is “the right Alice.”
Many of the traditional characters are found in this Wonderland, but most of the ominous poetry associated with those characters has been omitted. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are introduced, but they don’t seem to serve much purpose. I missed the recitation of “the Walrus and the Carpenter” very much.
Alice insists that the world around her must be a dream, as she is led through oversized mushrooms to a blue caterpillar, voiced by the talented Alan Rickman. Once again, Alice’s destiny is written: the caterpillar reveals a scroll which shows an image of Alice slaying the dreaded Jabberwocky. Indeed, it is her role to become the champion of Wonderland, to rise up and defeat the Red Queen who keeps this horrible beast as a weapon.
Later, we come across a dysfunctional tea party held under the shadow of a dilapidated windmill. Johnny Depp appears as the wild and wide-eyed Mad Hatter. Alice, it seems, is late to her tea just as she was to her engagement party. We learn that there is a whole network of characters, including the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), who wish to bring down the tyrannical Red Queen.
The struggle between the Red and White Queens eventually comes to a head, and Alice bravely accepts her fate to fight the Jabberwocky. And the Jabberwocky is indeed a terrifying entity, as it seems to be part dinosaur and part dragon.
The visual effects in this film were striking. Burton paints a beautiful landscape full of dark, rich colors. Several moments in the film are surreal and disturbing, such as when Alice crosses a moat full of dismembered heads to gain access to the Red Queen’s castle. However, some of the characters, such as the Cheshire cat, had a more cartoonish quality about them that I found off-putting.
The acting and voice-overs in the film were also impressive. Actress Mia Wasikowska was enchanting as Alice. She reflected the vulnerability and the more intrepid characteristics of the young girl quite well. Depp was delightfully creepy as the Mad Hatter. Crispin Glover was effective as the Knave of Hearts, the Red Queen’s lead henchman. And Stephen Fry was a marvelous voice choice for the strange and eerie Cheshire Cat.
The Red Queen is quite the character in this film. Helena Bonham Carter perfectly captures the Queen’s cruelty and absurdity. She delivers the “off with his head” line repeatedly and with gusto. The Queen’s cranium was so large that I was surprised she didn’t fall forward from the weight of it. And I haven’t seen that much blue eyeshadow since the 80s.
The Blu-ray version of this film enhanced the quality of the computer graphic imagery quite well. The special features consisted of interviews of the cast regarding the characters. These interviews contained behind-the-scenes looks at some of the makeup and green screen work done on this film. Though these interviews were enlightening, I would have loved to see more about the production process, since the sets and some characters were entirely computer-generated.
All things considered, Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a delightful departure from reality. Fans of Burton’s other films are sure to love it.
Alice is introduced to the audience as a child who has strange dreams. In the subsequent scenes, an older Alice is seen in a carriage with her mother. She is unwittingly on her way to her engagement party, and she is fully expected to accept the offer of marriage from someone who seems quite ill-suited for her. “Your life will be perfect. It’s already been decided,” says her sister Margaret.
Elements of the engagement party offer foreshadowing for the alternate reality Alice soon finds herself in. Instead of accepting her suitor’s proposal, Alice runs away and follows a rabbit wearing a waistcoat into an exceptionally large rabbit hole. There, she is found falling with a variety of household objects, including one particularly friendly piano.
Once in Wonderland, Alice’s world has literally turned upside-down. She falls from her perch on the ceiling to the floor. Alice solves a puzzle of many locked doors, using the expected growing and shrinking mechanisms, and then she emerges into a strange topiary. There she is greeted by the rabbit and other residents of Wonderland, who argue whether this Alice is “the right Alice.”
Many of the traditional characters are found in this Wonderland, but most of the ominous poetry associated with those characters has been omitted. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are introduced, but they don’t seem to serve much purpose. I missed the recitation of “the Walrus and the Carpenter” very much.
Alice insists that the world around her must be a dream, as she is led through oversized mushrooms to a blue caterpillar, voiced by the talented Alan Rickman. Once again, Alice’s destiny is written: the caterpillar reveals a scroll which shows an image of Alice slaying the dreaded Jabberwocky. Indeed, it is her role to become the champion of Wonderland, to rise up and defeat the Red Queen who keeps this horrible beast as a weapon.
Later, we come across a dysfunctional tea party held under the shadow of a dilapidated windmill. Johnny Depp appears as the wild and wide-eyed Mad Hatter. Alice, it seems, is late to her tea just as she was to her engagement party. We learn that there is a whole network of characters, including the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), who wish to bring down the tyrannical Red Queen.
The struggle between the Red and White Queens eventually comes to a head, and Alice bravely accepts her fate to fight the Jabberwocky. And the Jabberwocky is indeed a terrifying entity, as it seems to be part dinosaur and part dragon.
The visual effects in this film were striking. Burton paints a beautiful landscape full of dark, rich colors. Several moments in the film are surreal and disturbing, such as when Alice crosses a moat full of dismembered heads to gain access to the Red Queen’s castle. However, some of the characters, such as the Cheshire cat, had a more cartoonish quality about them that I found off-putting.
The acting and voice-overs in the film were also impressive. Actress Mia Wasikowska was enchanting as Alice. She reflected the vulnerability and the more intrepid characteristics of the young girl quite well. Depp was delightfully creepy as the Mad Hatter. Crispin Glover was effective as the Knave of Hearts, the Red Queen’s lead henchman. And Stephen Fry was a marvelous voice choice for the strange and eerie Cheshire Cat.
The Red Queen is quite the character in this film. Helena Bonham Carter perfectly captures the Queen’s cruelty and absurdity. She delivers the “off with his head” line repeatedly and with gusto. The Queen’s cranium was so large that I was surprised she didn’t fall forward from the weight of it. And I haven’t seen that much blue eyeshadow since the 80s.
The Blu-ray version of this film enhanced the quality of the computer graphic imagery quite well. The special features consisted of interviews of the cast regarding the characters. These interviews contained behind-the-scenes looks at some of the makeup and green screen work done on this film. Though these interviews were enlightening, I would have loved to see more about the production process, since the sets and some characters were entirely computer-generated.
All things considered, Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a delightful departure from reality. Fans of Burton’s other films are sure to love it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Transcendence (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
First time director and Academy award-winning cinematographer Wally Pfister (Inception, The Dark
Knight Trilogy) takes on an ambitious film both visually and thematically for his first attempt at the
director chair. And while he hits all the visual cues you would expect from someone who has worked
so closely with Christopher Nolan on several films, he does less so when it comes telling us a story
that works in the world that he is presenting to us on screen. And thus this film falls flat, muddled and
fragmented in its story.
Visually the film provides you with framing and movement that that is easy to follow and pleasing to
look at. Along with the score, the look of the film constantly feels like it is taking you somewhere grand
or eye-opening. However it never quite gets there as the passage of time is not clear which creates a
fragmented sense of reality.
Furthermore, because of the structure of the film, the viewer is expecting a form of payoff or definitive
stance from the message of the story. But instead the story falls flat upon itself by not clearly defining
the characters motivations on screen. That is not to say that the film is acted poorly, it is just that
there really isn’t any reason to believe the motivations of the characters because they were never
shown to us. We are supposed to believe that the love between Johnny Depp as Dr. Will Caster, the
leading artificial intelligence researcher and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) is the reason why the plot is
developing. But we are never truly shown the reason why their love is so strong. Furthermore, when Dr.
Caster is shot to stop him from furthering his research, his own wife Evelyn barley even sheds a tear.
Why then would I believe her ridiculous motivations to follow a self-aware artificial intelligence that she
believes is her husband, down the rabbit hole for years without constant reassurance that it is in fact her
Husband, which we never really get any explanation of? Nor do we get any reassurance that she loves
him, other than an occasional had touching a computer screen. I get that people greave in different
ways, but not all ways work on advancing a story on film.
Perhaps the biggest disjointed story development is when the Caster’s close friend and colleague Max
(Paul Bettany) is kidnapped by extremists for two years and no one is looking for him. Furthermore,
when he reappears after being told that two years has passed, he is now trying to stop the evolution of
AI that he helped create without more than a mere sentence. The film keeps reminding us that people
fear what they don’t understand, which is right. I fear I don’t understand the motivation behind the
characters without being shown or explained what happened to them or why they are doing something.
As if this was not enough, at no real point did any of ancillary characters matter. Cillian Murphy
represents the government at large as the lone FBI agent in the film. But his purpose is meaningless as
he does nothing to stop anything suspicious until the final act. What is worse, is that he was brought in
to stop the extremist (that are mostly forgotten after the first act) but then sides with them to attempt
to stop the AI. The same AI he let grow out of control in the first place.
I am not even going to go into the “pod-people” plot as it seemed as a way to try to advance the story
to an ending. As if these good scientists, who are just trying to help the world, have crossed the line or
something. This, which Evelyn still doesn’t see a problem with and continues to allow for years until
Morgan Freeman shows up and tells her to get out of her situation and away from the AI. At which
point, she mulls it over for perhaps a day and decides she is done. Ugh. You have come this far with no
reason, why stop? Just keep going?
I, like most movie goers, am willing to suspend my disbelief as long as the reasons for what I am
watching on screen make sense in the world shown to me. A few scenes here or there that provided
explanation or reason why is should care about these characters would have been appreciated and
helped this movie be less disjointed and muddled. Because of this, I really cannot recommend this film
to anyone except those who want to think abstractly about AI. But be warned, thematically, there is no
clear stance on weather that is good or bad either.
Knight Trilogy) takes on an ambitious film both visually and thematically for his first attempt at the
director chair. And while he hits all the visual cues you would expect from someone who has worked
so closely with Christopher Nolan on several films, he does less so when it comes telling us a story
that works in the world that he is presenting to us on screen. And thus this film falls flat, muddled and
fragmented in its story.
Visually the film provides you with framing and movement that that is easy to follow and pleasing to
look at. Along with the score, the look of the film constantly feels like it is taking you somewhere grand
or eye-opening. However it never quite gets there as the passage of time is not clear which creates a
fragmented sense of reality.
Furthermore, because of the structure of the film, the viewer is expecting a form of payoff or definitive
stance from the message of the story. But instead the story falls flat upon itself by not clearly defining
the characters motivations on screen. That is not to say that the film is acted poorly, it is just that
there really isn’t any reason to believe the motivations of the characters because they were never
shown to us. We are supposed to believe that the love between Johnny Depp as Dr. Will Caster, the
leading artificial intelligence researcher and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) is the reason why the plot is
developing. But we are never truly shown the reason why their love is so strong. Furthermore, when Dr.
Caster is shot to stop him from furthering his research, his own wife Evelyn barley even sheds a tear.
Why then would I believe her ridiculous motivations to follow a self-aware artificial intelligence that she
believes is her husband, down the rabbit hole for years without constant reassurance that it is in fact her
Husband, which we never really get any explanation of? Nor do we get any reassurance that she loves
him, other than an occasional had touching a computer screen. I get that people greave in different
ways, but not all ways work on advancing a story on film.
Perhaps the biggest disjointed story development is when the Caster’s close friend and colleague Max
(Paul Bettany) is kidnapped by extremists for two years and no one is looking for him. Furthermore,
when he reappears after being told that two years has passed, he is now trying to stop the evolution of
AI that he helped create without more than a mere sentence. The film keeps reminding us that people
fear what they don’t understand, which is right. I fear I don’t understand the motivation behind the
characters without being shown or explained what happened to them or why they are doing something.
As if this was not enough, at no real point did any of ancillary characters matter. Cillian Murphy
represents the government at large as the lone FBI agent in the film. But his purpose is meaningless as
he does nothing to stop anything suspicious until the final act. What is worse, is that he was brought in
to stop the extremist (that are mostly forgotten after the first act) but then sides with them to attempt
to stop the AI. The same AI he let grow out of control in the first place.
I am not even going to go into the “pod-people” plot as it seemed as a way to try to advance the story
to an ending. As if these good scientists, who are just trying to help the world, have crossed the line or
something. This, which Evelyn still doesn’t see a problem with and continues to allow for years until
Morgan Freeman shows up and tells her to get out of her situation and away from the AI. At which
point, she mulls it over for perhaps a day and decides she is done. Ugh. You have come this far with no
reason, why stop? Just keep going?
I, like most movie goers, am willing to suspend my disbelief as long as the reasons for what I am
watching on screen make sense in the world shown to me. A few scenes here or there that provided
explanation or reason why is should care about these characters would have been appreciated and
helped this movie be less disjointed and muddled. Because of this, I really cannot recommend this film
to anyone except those who want to think abstractly about AI. But be warned, thematically, there is no
clear stance on weather that is good or bad either.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Many Saints of Newark (2021) in Movies
Oct 12, 2021
The "non-Sopranos" part of this film worked much better
The new Sopranos prequel film THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a review-proof film. Most people fall into 1 of 2 camps.
The first, fans of the 1999-2007 landmark HBO series that some (including myself) call one of the best TV series of all time. The folks that fall into this camp will be checking this film out no matter what.
The second are folks that either never saw the series or have only a passing knowledge of it - these folks are (more than likely) gonna take a pass at this film.
And both camps would be right and wrong for THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a middle-of-the-road film that will be satisfying for SOPRANOS fans, but the part of this film that really, really works well has nothing to do with the series.
Written by Sopranos creator David Chase, TMSON is set in the late 1960’s-early 1970’s and tells the tale of a young Tony Soprano and his introduction to the North Jersey mafia and the charismatic mob boss who he is drawn to.
The first 15 minutes of this film were written specifically for SOPRANOS fans for it is here that you are introduced to younger versions of many of your favorite characters. From Tony to Uncle Junior to Livia (Tony’s Mom) to Pauly Walnuts, Silvio and “Big Pussy” they are all there - along with a few others you don’t know (and it is not a spoiler to say, there is a reason that they never made it to the TV series). You are also introduced to Tony’s Father Johnny Soprano, Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti and the center of this film, the son of the Boss “Uncle” Dickie Moltisanti (father of future TV Series character Christopher).
It’s an enjoyable enough introduction, but it is nothing new. The characters sit around, talk, act tough and eat. Something that we’ve seen in countless mob movies before. Chase and Director Alan Taylor (THOR: THE DARK WORLD) appear somewhat bored with this part of the film - almost as if they are saying “here they all are, enjoy this for we have a more interesting story to tell”. This first 15 minutes of the film seem to go on forever.
And then the movie - and Chase’s ideas and Taylor’s Direction - kick in.
And this is where TMSON begins to escalate as the story splits into 2 parts - the first following Dickie (Alessandro Nivola) and the 2nd following one of his “runners” (Leslie Odom, Jr.) who is destined to become a powerful boss of the “Black Mafia”.
It’s a smart juxtaposition of story, but unfortunately for SOPRANO’s fans, the first story (following Dickie) and including most of the Soprano’s characters is the less interesting of the 2 stories. It is the journey of Leslie Odom, Jr.’s character that makes for a more compelling story. It is as if Chase had an interesting idea for a mob film but knew he would not be able to get it made unless he tied it somewhat to a Sopranos story.
Leslie Odom Jr. is magnetic as Harold McBrayer, the former numbers runner for Dickie that has an awaking through the Black Power movement of the late ‘60’s and becomes a formidable mob boss in his own right. This half of the movie/story is intriguing and interesting for you never know in what direction it is going to land. This “B” story is free to be whatever it wants/needs to be and this freedom elevates it.
The same cannot be said for the “A” story - the journey of Dickie Moltisanti. Alessandro Nivola is charming enough as this sadistic, sociopathic mobster, but he is saddled with too much TV show baggage to become a character on his own. Specifically his mentorship and (ultimate) disassociation with the young Tony Soprano (played by Michael Gandolfini, the son of the late James Gandolfini who played Tony in the TV series). I felt like these characters were burdened with the weight of the TV show and the need to pay homage to what will be coming in their lives via the TV show and to shoehorn in each character along the way.
Consequently some great actors like Vera Farmiga (Tony’s mother Livia), Jon Bernthal (Tony’s father), and Corey Stoll (as Uncle Junior) are all filming extended cameos. They do a good (enough) job bringing the essence of the characters from the TV Series to this film, but they just don’t have enough to do. I would love for these 3 to spin-off on their own.
The same can be said for Billy Magnussen (Pauly), John Magaro (Silvio) and Samson Moeakiola (Big Pussy). They all do a nice job bringing the younger versions of these characters to life (especailly Magaro) but they just don’t have enough to do.
And then there is Ray Liotta’s over-the-top performance as Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti. Ove-the-top doesn’t even begin to describe the performance he is giving. I will give him credit, though, he does tone it down about 1/2 way through the film, but…geez…the first part…wow.
Ultimately, the failure of the “A” story to captivate dooms this movie to mediocre status. I would have loved for Chase to really sink his teeth into the “B” story - and to let Leslie Odom Jr. really fly as a character and and actor.
But that would have defeated the purpose of making a Sopranos prequel - a prequel that, perhaps, shouldn’t have been made in the first place.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The first, fans of the 1999-2007 landmark HBO series that some (including myself) call one of the best TV series of all time. The folks that fall into this camp will be checking this film out no matter what.
The second are folks that either never saw the series or have only a passing knowledge of it - these folks are (more than likely) gonna take a pass at this film.
And both camps would be right and wrong for THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a middle-of-the-road film that will be satisfying for SOPRANOS fans, but the part of this film that really, really works well has nothing to do with the series.
Written by Sopranos creator David Chase, TMSON is set in the late 1960’s-early 1970’s and tells the tale of a young Tony Soprano and his introduction to the North Jersey mafia and the charismatic mob boss who he is drawn to.
The first 15 minutes of this film were written specifically for SOPRANOS fans for it is here that you are introduced to younger versions of many of your favorite characters. From Tony to Uncle Junior to Livia (Tony’s Mom) to Pauly Walnuts, Silvio and “Big Pussy” they are all there - along with a few others you don’t know (and it is not a spoiler to say, there is a reason that they never made it to the TV series). You are also introduced to Tony’s Father Johnny Soprano, Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti and the center of this film, the son of the Boss “Uncle” Dickie Moltisanti (father of future TV Series character Christopher).
It’s an enjoyable enough introduction, but it is nothing new. The characters sit around, talk, act tough and eat. Something that we’ve seen in countless mob movies before. Chase and Director Alan Taylor (THOR: THE DARK WORLD) appear somewhat bored with this part of the film - almost as if they are saying “here they all are, enjoy this for we have a more interesting story to tell”. This first 15 minutes of the film seem to go on forever.
And then the movie - and Chase’s ideas and Taylor’s Direction - kick in.
And this is where TMSON begins to escalate as the story splits into 2 parts - the first following Dickie (Alessandro Nivola) and the 2nd following one of his “runners” (Leslie Odom, Jr.) who is destined to become a powerful boss of the “Black Mafia”.
It’s a smart juxtaposition of story, but unfortunately for SOPRANO’s fans, the first story (following Dickie) and including most of the Soprano’s characters is the less interesting of the 2 stories. It is the journey of Leslie Odom, Jr.’s character that makes for a more compelling story. It is as if Chase had an interesting idea for a mob film but knew he would not be able to get it made unless he tied it somewhat to a Sopranos story.
Leslie Odom Jr. is magnetic as Harold McBrayer, the former numbers runner for Dickie that has an awaking through the Black Power movement of the late ‘60’s and becomes a formidable mob boss in his own right. This half of the movie/story is intriguing and interesting for you never know in what direction it is going to land. This “B” story is free to be whatever it wants/needs to be and this freedom elevates it.
The same cannot be said for the “A” story - the journey of Dickie Moltisanti. Alessandro Nivola is charming enough as this sadistic, sociopathic mobster, but he is saddled with too much TV show baggage to become a character on his own. Specifically his mentorship and (ultimate) disassociation with the young Tony Soprano (played by Michael Gandolfini, the son of the late James Gandolfini who played Tony in the TV series). I felt like these characters were burdened with the weight of the TV show and the need to pay homage to what will be coming in their lives via the TV show and to shoehorn in each character along the way.
Consequently some great actors like Vera Farmiga (Tony’s mother Livia), Jon Bernthal (Tony’s father), and Corey Stoll (as Uncle Junior) are all filming extended cameos. They do a good (enough) job bringing the essence of the characters from the TV Series to this film, but they just don’t have enough to do. I would love for these 3 to spin-off on their own.
The same can be said for Billy Magnussen (Pauly), John Magaro (Silvio) and Samson Moeakiola (Big Pussy). They all do a nice job bringing the younger versions of these characters to life (especailly Magaro) but they just don’t have enough to do.
And then there is Ray Liotta’s over-the-top performance as Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti. Ove-the-top doesn’t even begin to describe the performance he is giving. I will give him credit, though, he does tone it down about 1/2 way through the film, but…geez…the first part…wow.
Ultimately, the failure of the “A” story to captivate dooms this movie to mediocre status. I would have loved for Chase to really sink his teeth into the “B” story - and to let Leslie Odom Jr. really fly as a character and and actor.
But that would have defeated the purpose of making a Sopranos prequel - a prequel that, perhaps, shouldn’t have been made in the first place.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
In the search for a way to watch the 92nd Academy Awards live from Hollywood tonight I was led to a subscription for Now TV, which is basically the online platform for Sky Cinema. And there I found all the missing films I had yet to see from last year that aren’t available “free” on Amazon Prime or Netflix. I should really have worked it out before now that a free trial might be available, having assumed that a Sky subscription was beyond my means at the moment. Imagine my excitement to not only secure the Oscars but a 7 day pass to catch up on some big titles. It’s the small things in life…
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?