Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Beast (2022) in Movies
Sep 24, 2022
More Tension Than I Anticipate
We are witnessing the after-effects of the COVID PANDEMIC shutdown in 2020 as the films that are being released at the tail end of summer/early fall of 2022 are not the most scintillating of efforts and thus, one must lower their expectations to have a good time at the Cineplex.
Such is the case with the “Cujo in Africa” killer lion saga BEAST starring Idris Elba as a widowed father of two teenage girls. The threesome head back to the African Village where the deceased mother was born and raised - to connect to their roots - unaware that poachers have unwittingly created a rogue, killer lion who is feasting on the humans in the area.
Directed by Batasar Kormakur (2 GUNS) and written, perfunctorily, by Ryan Engle (RAMPAGE) BEAST is a pretty by-the-book “wild animal goes after human” story with the first 1/3 of this 90 minute epic being the setup (in this case, clumsily setting up the daughter’s anger at their father who “was not there” as their mother was dying). Do you think the upcoming adventure is going to bring these 3 closer?
The middle third of the film is the hook where we put these 3 (and their friend, played by Sharlto Copley - DISTRICT 9) into harm’s way in such a way that they are trapped and must contend with the BEAST. And the final 1/3 is the payoff - how does this group conquer the BEAST?
Pretty mechanical, right?
Well…a funny thing happened while watching this film… I found myself invested in these characters, well…at least some of them, and I was genuinely interested and intrigued and (at times) a little on the edge of my seat as I watched them attempt to get out of their predicament.
Credit for this has to go to Director Kormakur who uses his camera to beautifully capture the Africa landscape that these folks are trapped in. It is a loving picture of Africa that Kormakur has drawn and it made the slow parts of this film (and there are plenty) bearable just by being able to look at the background.
Also helping this film is the friendship and camaraderie shown between Elba’s character and Copley’s character. These are 2 good actors looking like they actually are enjoying their time together and their actions on screen mirror their personalities that are drawn thinly and quickly during the first part of the film.
Fairing less well are the 2 daughters, played by Leah Jeffries and Iyana Halley. They are, for the most part, 1 dimensional “typical teenagers” who have a bone to pick with their father and don’t shy away from picking at that bone - and each other - throughout the course of this film.
But, enough about all of that, what one goes to see in these types of films is the animal attacks and Director Kormakur traps our foursome in and around a jeep while the BEAST attacks and attacks and attacks - and these scenes are shot very professionally and actually manage to ratchet up the tension as the CGI Lion goes after it’s victims.
There are enough plot holes to drive the aforementioned Jeep through in this film and sometimes the characters - especially the 2 teenage girls - make VERY dumb decisions, but the tension of the attack scenes and the work of Elba and Copley makes this film a decent (enough) viewing experience.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the “Cujo in Africa” killer lion saga BEAST starring Idris Elba as a widowed father of two teenage girls. The threesome head back to the African Village where the deceased mother was born and raised - to connect to their roots - unaware that poachers have unwittingly created a rogue, killer lion who is feasting on the humans in the area.
Directed by Batasar Kormakur (2 GUNS) and written, perfunctorily, by Ryan Engle (RAMPAGE) BEAST is a pretty by-the-book “wild animal goes after human” story with the first 1/3 of this 90 minute epic being the setup (in this case, clumsily setting up the daughter’s anger at their father who “was not there” as their mother was dying). Do you think the upcoming adventure is going to bring these 3 closer?
The middle third of the film is the hook where we put these 3 (and their friend, played by Sharlto Copley - DISTRICT 9) into harm’s way in such a way that they are trapped and must contend with the BEAST. And the final 1/3 is the payoff - how does this group conquer the BEAST?
Pretty mechanical, right?
Well…a funny thing happened while watching this film… I found myself invested in these characters, well…at least some of them, and I was genuinely interested and intrigued and (at times) a little on the edge of my seat as I watched them attempt to get out of their predicament.
Credit for this has to go to Director Kormakur who uses his camera to beautifully capture the Africa landscape that these folks are trapped in. It is a loving picture of Africa that Kormakur has drawn and it made the slow parts of this film (and there are plenty) bearable just by being able to look at the background.
Also helping this film is the friendship and camaraderie shown between Elba’s character and Copley’s character. These are 2 good actors looking like they actually are enjoying their time together and their actions on screen mirror their personalities that are drawn thinly and quickly during the first part of the film.
Fairing less well are the 2 daughters, played by Leah Jeffries and Iyana Halley. They are, for the most part, 1 dimensional “typical teenagers” who have a bone to pick with their father and don’t shy away from picking at that bone - and each other - throughout the course of this film.
But, enough about all of that, what one goes to see in these types of films is the animal attacks and Director Kormakur traps our foursome in and around a jeep while the BEAST attacks and attacks and attacks - and these scenes are shot very professionally and actually manage to ratchet up the tension as the CGI Lion goes after it’s victims.
There are enough plot holes to drive the aforementioned Jeep through in this film and sometimes the characters - especially the 2 teenage girls - make VERY dumb decisions, but the tension of the attack scenes and the work of Elba and Copley makes this film a decent (enough) viewing experience.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated 5ive Girls (2006) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 5ive Girls starts when one of the student of Father Drake’s (Perlman) school it taken by an evil force leaving only blood stained classroom. With the school closed down on the outside we still see Father Drake trying to help troubled girls with his newest class being Alex (Miller), Mara (Madley), Cecilia (Vnesa), Leah (Mamabolo) and Connie (Quintas).
The girls discover they are all witches with different powers and when Alex starts getting haunted by Elizabeth but what is she trying to communicate. We learn that Miss Pearce (Lalonde) is involved with what is going on but is she good or bad? Could these girls have been bought together for a reason? The girls find themselves battling the ancient demon Legion who wants to walk the Earth once more.
5ive Girls gives us a witch based film where the witches are not evil but instead fighting evil. Having the girls not fully understanding their powers works because we get to learn about them with them but saying that doing that really doesn’t help when they get picked off easily. I would like to see more about the girl’s powers but in the end we just have basic ideas of them. The story does work well for the fighting evil but also could just have been an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Actor Review
Ron Perlman: Father Drake is haunted by losing one of his students to an evil spirit, he is bought back to the school to finally make up for what happened but finds himself fighting the same evil that took away his faith. Ron is good in this role even if he is more of a supporting character than leading man.
Jennifer Miller: Alex is the last of the five new girls to arrive at the school, she has the ability to prevent and move objects with her mind. While in the school she finds herself having to work with the other girls to solve the hauntings going on in the school. Jennifer is solid in this role that works as the unsure girl.
Jordan Madley: Mara is the streetwise of the five girls, she is overly aggressive when it comes to protecting herself but is great to have on the right side when it comes to fighting the evil. Jordan is good as the bad ass chick that is actually very insecure.
Terra Vnesa: Cecilia is one of the students, she is the blind student who makes light of her disability being one of the main comic reliefs in the film. Terra is good because she is the funniest of the characters involved.
Support Cast: 5ive Girls only has a couple of extra cast members that end up doing just as good a job of the rest of the cast.
Director Review: Warren P Sonoda – Warren gives us a solid film that is easy to watch but never really challenges us.
Horror: 5ive Girls has good horror elements of good versus evil along with solid gore moments.
Thriller: 5ive Girls keeps us guessing to what will happened next as well as wondering what is going on through the story even if you can work parts of the film out.
Settings: 5ive Girls keeps nearly all the film in one place the school that is meant to be locked from the outside.
Special Effects: 5ive Girls has solid effects for the kills but when we see Legion we don’t get the best effects.
Suggestion: 5ive Girls is one to watch if it is on late night television. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Only having early witch abilities.
Worst Part: Slightly predictable.
Funniest Scene: Blind girl searching for someone alone while still enough people to do it in pairs.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $3 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes
Tagline: 5 Witches. 5 Powers. One Evil.
Overall: Easy to watch horror that does lack scares but has strong elements.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/05/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-5ive-girls-2006/
The girls discover they are all witches with different powers and when Alex starts getting haunted by Elizabeth but what is she trying to communicate. We learn that Miss Pearce (Lalonde) is involved with what is going on but is she good or bad? Could these girls have been bought together for a reason? The girls find themselves battling the ancient demon Legion who wants to walk the Earth once more.
5ive Girls gives us a witch based film where the witches are not evil but instead fighting evil. Having the girls not fully understanding their powers works because we get to learn about them with them but saying that doing that really doesn’t help when they get picked off easily. I would like to see more about the girl’s powers but in the end we just have basic ideas of them. The story does work well for the fighting evil but also could just have been an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Actor Review
Ron Perlman: Father Drake is haunted by losing one of his students to an evil spirit, he is bought back to the school to finally make up for what happened but finds himself fighting the same evil that took away his faith. Ron is good in this role even if he is more of a supporting character than leading man.
Jennifer Miller: Alex is the last of the five new girls to arrive at the school, she has the ability to prevent and move objects with her mind. While in the school she finds herself having to work with the other girls to solve the hauntings going on in the school. Jennifer is solid in this role that works as the unsure girl.
Jordan Madley: Mara is the streetwise of the five girls, she is overly aggressive when it comes to protecting herself but is great to have on the right side when it comes to fighting the evil. Jordan is good as the bad ass chick that is actually very insecure.
Terra Vnesa: Cecilia is one of the students, she is the blind student who makes light of her disability being one of the main comic reliefs in the film. Terra is good because she is the funniest of the characters involved.
Support Cast: 5ive Girls only has a couple of extra cast members that end up doing just as good a job of the rest of the cast.
Director Review: Warren P Sonoda – Warren gives us a solid film that is easy to watch but never really challenges us.
Horror: 5ive Girls has good horror elements of good versus evil along with solid gore moments.
Thriller: 5ive Girls keeps us guessing to what will happened next as well as wondering what is going on through the story even if you can work parts of the film out.
Settings: 5ive Girls keeps nearly all the film in one place the school that is meant to be locked from the outside.
Special Effects: 5ive Girls has solid effects for the kills but when we see Legion we don’t get the best effects.
Suggestion: 5ive Girls is one to watch if it is on late night television. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: Only having early witch abilities.
Worst Part: Slightly predictable.
Funniest Scene: Blind girl searching for someone alone while still enough people to do it in pairs.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $3 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes
Tagline: 5 Witches. 5 Powers. One Evil.
Overall: Easy to watch horror that does lack scares but has strong elements.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/10/05/movie-reviews-101-midnight-halloween-horror-5ive-girls-2006/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 22, 2019
Verdict: Franchise Hasn’t Fallen
Story: Angel Has Fallen starts when Mike banning (Butler) is the only survivor of a drone attack on President Allan Trumbull (Freeman), the rest of the team are killed and Mike has been framed for the assassination attempt. FBI agent Helen Thompson (Smith) is investigating the case, with Mike looking cut and dry to have been the man behind it, but when Mike escapes, he sets out to prove his innocence.
Mike turns to his estranged father Clay (Nolte) as he looks to discover why his old friend an private contractor Wade Jennings (Huston) has set him up and how he can prove his isn’t involved despite a nationwide manhunt for him.
Thoughts on Angel Has Fallen
Characters – Mike Banning is still a senior secret service man, playing righthand to the President, he has been keeping his injuries secret, which is nice to see an action man actually suffering injuries, instead of just being fine, like most action stars. He does his duty saving the President from an attack, only to find himself framed. When the people come to finish the job on Banning, he escapes and uses all his training to allude and search for a way to prove his innocence. Allan Trumbull is now the President, stepping up from his role as the Vice in the previous two outings, he is looking to change certain ideas, though he spends most of his film in a coma after the attack, he is the only other witness who could defend Mike’s involvement too. Wade Jennings is the private military contractor and old military buddy of Mike’s, he has framed him and is using his expertly trained team to hunt him down and finish off the job. Leah is the wife of Mike’s she is trying to keep him from working now they have a child and must deal with the consequences of seeing the name dragged through the dirt. FBI Agent Helen Thompson is trying to put the pieces together, seeing Mike as the prime suspect, she just wants the case closed without anybody else being hurt. Clay Banning is the estranged father of Mike’s he has been off the grid for years because of his own trauma from his time in the war, he is the only person Mike knows he can turn too.
Performances – Gerard Butler is great in the leading role, he is always going to be a bankable star when it comes to action roles and this is no different. Morgan Freeman does everything you would expect from a President role, without needing to do much. Piper Perabo takes over from Radha Mitchell in the wife role, which doesn’t have much to do if we are being honest. Danny Huston is one of these actors that you know is always going to be a villain, he does everything we know he can do in this role. Nick Nolte is a lot of fun, bringing his trademark estranged father role to the big screen once again, he gets a few laughs in too.
Story – The story here sees Mike Banning being framed for the assassination attempt of the President, the figure that he has been guarding for years and he must go off the grid to prove who was really behind it. The story is one that is great to watch for action, but if you have seen the previous instalments of the franchise, you will be left asking a few questions. First what happened to President Benjamin Asher, we have zero mention of him, secondly, how is nobody on Mike’s side after all he has done in the past, like seriously, he pretty much saved the President against impossible odds twice. While this question could be answered with the number of pieces of evidence placed on him, it still doesn’t seem to fit the character these people have created. Away from these questions, we must say this does build on the scale of the previous film’s stories, which is good because it does feel different, which each film does do. We could easily watch this story as a single film too and the fact that we do touch on the physical injuries that Mike has suffered through his job, does show a vulnerable action character.
Action – The action is big, we might not have the large scale opening attack, but once we get into the military formations ideas, we get plenty of tactical shootings.
Settings – The film does build on the settings, with the first one being one building, the second being one city, now we have a nationwide hunt.
Special Effects – The effects, well this has been an issue for the franchise all along, but the green screen scenes are so clear to see it almost feels like they didn’t finish the job yet.
Scene of the Movie – Mike and Clay have an escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No mention of former President Benjamin Asher, like what happened here?
Final Thoughts – This is a action sequel that does enough different to make it feel fresh even if certain parts of the story feels too farfetched, it does continue to have a 24 vibe to everything, but it is well for a watch if you have seen the franchise or not.
Overall: Trilogy that hasn’t Fallen.
Story: Angel Has Fallen starts when Mike banning (Butler) is the only survivor of a drone attack on President Allan Trumbull (Freeman), the rest of the team are killed and Mike has been framed for the assassination attempt. FBI agent Helen Thompson (Smith) is investigating the case, with Mike looking cut and dry to have been the man behind it, but when Mike escapes, he sets out to prove his innocence.
Mike turns to his estranged father Clay (Nolte) as he looks to discover why his old friend an private contractor Wade Jennings (Huston) has set him up and how he can prove his isn’t involved despite a nationwide manhunt for him.
Thoughts on Angel Has Fallen
Characters – Mike Banning is still a senior secret service man, playing righthand to the President, he has been keeping his injuries secret, which is nice to see an action man actually suffering injuries, instead of just being fine, like most action stars. He does his duty saving the President from an attack, only to find himself framed. When the people come to finish the job on Banning, he escapes and uses all his training to allude and search for a way to prove his innocence. Allan Trumbull is now the President, stepping up from his role as the Vice in the previous two outings, he is looking to change certain ideas, though he spends most of his film in a coma after the attack, he is the only other witness who could defend Mike’s involvement too. Wade Jennings is the private military contractor and old military buddy of Mike’s, he has framed him and is using his expertly trained team to hunt him down and finish off the job. Leah is the wife of Mike’s she is trying to keep him from working now they have a child and must deal with the consequences of seeing the name dragged through the dirt. FBI Agent Helen Thompson is trying to put the pieces together, seeing Mike as the prime suspect, she just wants the case closed without anybody else being hurt. Clay Banning is the estranged father of Mike’s he has been off the grid for years because of his own trauma from his time in the war, he is the only person Mike knows he can turn too.
Performances – Gerard Butler is great in the leading role, he is always going to be a bankable star when it comes to action roles and this is no different. Morgan Freeman does everything you would expect from a President role, without needing to do much. Piper Perabo takes over from Radha Mitchell in the wife role, which doesn’t have much to do if we are being honest. Danny Huston is one of these actors that you know is always going to be a villain, he does everything we know he can do in this role. Nick Nolte is a lot of fun, bringing his trademark estranged father role to the big screen once again, he gets a few laughs in too.
Story – The story here sees Mike Banning being framed for the assassination attempt of the President, the figure that he has been guarding for years and he must go off the grid to prove who was really behind it. The story is one that is great to watch for action, but if you have seen the previous instalments of the franchise, you will be left asking a few questions. First what happened to President Benjamin Asher, we have zero mention of him, secondly, how is nobody on Mike’s side after all he has done in the past, like seriously, he pretty much saved the President against impossible odds twice. While this question could be answered with the number of pieces of evidence placed on him, it still doesn’t seem to fit the character these people have created. Away from these questions, we must say this does build on the scale of the previous film’s stories, which is good because it does feel different, which each film does do. We could easily watch this story as a single film too and the fact that we do touch on the physical injuries that Mike has suffered through his job, does show a vulnerable action character.
Action – The action is big, we might not have the large scale opening attack, but once we get into the military formations ideas, we get plenty of tactical shootings.
Settings – The film does build on the settings, with the first one being one building, the second being one city, now we have a nationwide hunt.
Special Effects – The effects, well this has been an issue for the franchise all along, but the green screen scenes are so clear to see it almost feels like they didn’t finish the job yet.
Scene of the Movie – Mike and Clay have an escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No mention of former President Benjamin Asher, like what happened here?
Final Thoughts – This is a action sequel that does enough different to make it feel fresh even if certain parts of the story feels too farfetched, it does continue to have a 24 vibe to everything, but it is well for a watch if you have seen the franchise or not.
Overall: Trilogy that hasn’t Fallen.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Time to Exhale.
I saw this as a Cineworld “Secret Unlimited Screening” event (for non-UK readers, Cineworld is one of the main movie-theater chains), so went in – like the majority of the audience I suspect – predicting early sight of Lara Croft in skin tight shorts! This was a bit different! A secret screening is an interesting concept, and really tests the metal of a film in engaging its audience early. This one failed to some degree, with seven people (I was counting) walking out in the first 10 minutes. (To be fair on those seven, the film’s first 20 minutes are rather laborious; and to be fair on the film, this was a pretty full auditorium so as a percentage drop out it was low).
Teen heartthrob Nick Robinson (the older brother from “Jurassic World“) plays the eponymous hero who has a well-buried secret: he’s gay. Growing up in Pleasantville (I almost expected someone to yell “Cat!” and the fire brigade turn up) he feels unable to come out to either his high-school friends or his loving family (“Apple pie cooling on the window-sill anyone?”). But striking up an email relationship with another closeted male from the same high school – nicknamed “Blue” – allows him to explore his feelings about his sexuality and fall in love all at the same time. But neither coming out or love run terribly smoothly for Simon…
Happy families. From left, Nick Robinson, Talitha Bateman, Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel.
I am forty years adrift from being able to directly relate to the stresses and strains of modern high-school life (though I AM still 17 on the inside people!) But even to me, this film doesn’t feel like it should be set in the present day. While it needs to be for its tweeting and blogging story-line, surely there are few backwaters in either America or Western Europe where gay people have to stay so silent? An 80’s or early 90’s setting would, I think, have worked so much better. (Ironically, its not his gay-ness or otherwise that his friends get upset by, but something far more fundamental in the human condition).
Definitely set in the present day.
That aside, this is a sweet and ultimately quite engaging film that I’m sure will be a big hit with a teenage audience. While for me it didn’t come close to ticking all of the coming-of-age boxes that the inestimable “Lady Bird” did, it does cover old ground in a new and refreshing way, and I’m sure it WILL be very helpful for many gay people in getting the courage to come out. Times are different today, but I still can imagine few things requiring more bravery than declaring you are gay to your parents and closest friends (even though, deep down, they surely already suspect).
So, it’s sweet, but also for me (although far from its target audience) rather flat. As a comedy drama, the moments of comedy are few and far between, with only one or two of the lines making me chuckle rather than smile. A quiet auditorium is not a good sign for a film with “Comedy” in its imdb description. It does however occasionally break through with something memorable: a full on college “La La Land” scene (“Not that gay” – LoL) is a case in point. And all of the scenes featuring comedy actress Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms Allbright add much needed energy and humour to the film.
Someone should tell him… regardless of gender preference, sex is never going to work like this.
Of the teen actors, Robinson is fine but it is Katherine Langford as Simon’s friend Leah who stood out for me. Talitha Eliana Bateman (“The 5th Wave“; looking a whole lot younger than her 16 years!) is also impressive as Simon’s culinary sister Nora. Simon’s parents are played by Jennifer Garner (“Dallas Buyers Club“) and Josh Duhamel (a new one on me… he’s been in the “Transformers” films apparently).
Simon says walk this way. From left, Jorge Lendeborg Jr., Nich Robinson, Alexandra Shipp and Katherine Langford.
The screenplay is by movie virgins Elizabeth Berger and Isaac Aptaker, and is a slightly patchy affair. There are scenes that worked well (a cringe inducing sports stadium scene for example) but other times where it seems to be trying too hard for T-shirt captions…. a line from Ethan (Clark Moore) about hate crime was a “Ye-what?” moment.
Some of the characters really don’t quite work either: Tony Hale (so memorable as the useless PA in “Veep”) plays almost a school-ified version of Stephen Stucker’s Johnny from “Airplane”. Perhaps that would work as some sort of whacky hall monitor guy… but it transpires that he is the headmaster. No, I don’t think so.
A bit OTT. Veep’s Tony Hale as the principal with a surfeit of bonhomie.
So, in summary, after a bit of a bumpy start, its a pleasant watch that culminates in a feel-good ending. Feel good, that is, providing you have liberal views: I can’t see it pleasing many Trump supporters. I also can’t see it getting a cinema release in Gambia or Nigeria, though God only knows they could use one. If I could give half stars I would give this one an extra half as I applaud both the theme its trying to promote and for bringing something fresh to the screen…
Teen heartthrob Nick Robinson (the older brother from “Jurassic World“) plays the eponymous hero who has a well-buried secret: he’s gay. Growing up in Pleasantville (I almost expected someone to yell “Cat!” and the fire brigade turn up) he feels unable to come out to either his high-school friends or his loving family (“Apple pie cooling on the window-sill anyone?”). But striking up an email relationship with another closeted male from the same high school – nicknamed “Blue” – allows him to explore his feelings about his sexuality and fall in love all at the same time. But neither coming out or love run terribly smoothly for Simon…
Happy families. From left, Nick Robinson, Talitha Bateman, Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel.
I am forty years adrift from being able to directly relate to the stresses and strains of modern high-school life (though I AM still 17 on the inside people!) But even to me, this film doesn’t feel like it should be set in the present day. While it needs to be for its tweeting and blogging story-line, surely there are few backwaters in either America or Western Europe where gay people have to stay so silent? An 80’s or early 90’s setting would, I think, have worked so much better. (Ironically, its not his gay-ness or otherwise that his friends get upset by, but something far more fundamental in the human condition).
Definitely set in the present day.
That aside, this is a sweet and ultimately quite engaging film that I’m sure will be a big hit with a teenage audience. While for me it didn’t come close to ticking all of the coming-of-age boxes that the inestimable “Lady Bird” did, it does cover old ground in a new and refreshing way, and I’m sure it WILL be very helpful for many gay people in getting the courage to come out. Times are different today, but I still can imagine few things requiring more bravery than declaring you are gay to your parents and closest friends (even though, deep down, they surely already suspect).
So, it’s sweet, but also for me (although far from its target audience) rather flat. As a comedy drama, the moments of comedy are few and far between, with only one or two of the lines making me chuckle rather than smile. A quiet auditorium is not a good sign for a film with “Comedy” in its imdb description. It does however occasionally break through with something memorable: a full on college “La La Land” scene (“Not that gay” – LoL) is a case in point. And all of the scenes featuring comedy actress Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms Allbright add much needed energy and humour to the film.
Someone should tell him… regardless of gender preference, sex is never going to work like this.
Of the teen actors, Robinson is fine but it is Katherine Langford as Simon’s friend Leah who stood out for me. Talitha Eliana Bateman (“The 5th Wave“; looking a whole lot younger than her 16 years!) is also impressive as Simon’s culinary sister Nora. Simon’s parents are played by Jennifer Garner (“Dallas Buyers Club“) and Josh Duhamel (a new one on me… he’s been in the “Transformers” films apparently).
Simon says walk this way. From left, Jorge Lendeborg Jr., Nich Robinson, Alexandra Shipp and Katherine Langford.
The screenplay is by movie virgins Elizabeth Berger and Isaac Aptaker, and is a slightly patchy affair. There are scenes that worked well (a cringe inducing sports stadium scene for example) but other times where it seems to be trying too hard for T-shirt captions…. a line from Ethan (Clark Moore) about hate crime was a “Ye-what?” moment.
Some of the characters really don’t quite work either: Tony Hale (so memorable as the useless PA in “Veep”) plays almost a school-ified version of Stephen Stucker’s Johnny from “Airplane”. Perhaps that would work as some sort of whacky hall monitor guy… but it transpires that he is the headmaster. No, I don’t think so.
A bit OTT. Veep’s Tony Hale as the principal with a surfeit of bonhomie.
So, in summary, after a bit of a bumpy start, its a pleasant watch that culminates in a feel-good ending. Feel good, that is, providing you have liberal views: I can’t see it pleasing many Trump supporters. I also can’t see it getting a cinema release in Gambia or Nigeria, though God only knows they could use one. If I could give half stars I would give this one an extra half as I applaud both the theme its trying to promote and for bringing something fresh to the screen…
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)