Search
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated See You Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Oct 23, 2019
Highly Entertaining and Thought-Provoking
After successfully creating a time machine, high school scientist CJ Walker (Eden Duncan-Smith) decides to go back in time and save her brother from being gunned down by police. She soon learns that it’s harder to change the past than she once thought.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
With an eighty-seven-minute runtime, the movie doesn’t linger getting you into the action immediately. We see CJ and her partner Sebastian Thomas (Dante Chrichlow) working through trials of time machine testing which prove for hilarious results. It quickly brought me into the world of the characters and laid the foundation for the story.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
See You Yesterday captures the full essence of New York. The teens walk through busy streets past bodegas and fruit stands. They hit corner stores and picnics, the subway their primary means of transportation. Although the time travel aspect is slightly cheesy to watch (ok, extremely cheesy), it doesn’t diminish the impactful moments director Stefon Bristol is able to capture.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
The movie makes full use of its short runtime, not slowing down for a second. It does a masterful job of sprinkling in comedic moments into a movie that could otherwise lull you into a sense of helplessness. I was riveted throughout by all the potential outcomes that could await.
Memorability: 10
So much to say about how powerful this movie is. It explores time travel like never before with decisions that revolve around what’s happening right now in the public eye. You walk away not sure of what’s right or what’s wrong or if you would’ve approached the situation in the same way. This movie will definitely sit with you long after you watch it.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Great story through and through. The movie never cheats itself and carries things through no matter how tough it can be at times. The story works largely in part due to the two main characters having such opposing views to approaching the conflict. It creates friction and an uncomfortable tension necessary for the checks and balances of the movie.
Resolution: 7
While I wasn’t in love with the ending, I understand that it was necessary and I also understand the point that was being driven home. If nothing else, it was definitely an ending that left you wanting more.
Overall: 95
See You Yesterday represents everything I love about movies. As of late October 2019, this definitely falls into my Top Ten list for the year. See it, asap. Not only will you love it, but it won’t take up a lot of time in your day.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
With an eighty-seven-minute runtime, the movie doesn’t linger getting you into the action immediately. We see CJ and her partner Sebastian Thomas (Dante Chrichlow) working through trials of time machine testing which prove for hilarious results. It quickly brought me into the world of the characters and laid the foundation for the story.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
See You Yesterday captures the full essence of New York. The teens walk through busy streets past bodegas and fruit stands. They hit corner stores and picnics, the subway their primary means of transportation. Although the time travel aspect is slightly cheesy to watch (ok, extremely cheesy), it doesn’t diminish the impactful moments director Stefon Bristol is able to capture.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
The movie makes full use of its short runtime, not slowing down for a second. It does a masterful job of sprinkling in comedic moments into a movie that could otherwise lull you into a sense of helplessness. I was riveted throughout by all the potential outcomes that could await.
Memorability: 10
So much to say about how powerful this movie is. It explores time travel like never before with decisions that revolve around what’s happening right now in the public eye. You walk away not sure of what’s right or what’s wrong or if you would’ve approached the situation in the same way. This movie will definitely sit with you long after you watch it.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Great story through and through. The movie never cheats itself and carries things through no matter how tough it can be at times. The story works largely in part due to the two main characters having such opposing views to approaching the conflict. It creates friction and an uncomfortable tension necessary for the checks and balances of the movie.
Resolution: 7
While I wasn’t in love with the ending, I understand that it was necessary and I also understand the point that was being driven home. If nothing else, it was definitely an ending that left you wanting more.
Overall: 95
See You Yesterday represents everything I love about movies. As of late October 2019, this definitely falls into my Top Ten list for the year. See it, asap. Not only will you love it, but it won’t take up a lot of time in your day.
100 Yoga Spa Relax Music
Health & Fitness
App
100 Yoga Spa Relax Music - The Greatest Yoga,Spa,Meditation,Healing and Manifestation Collection...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021
Suffers from Sequel-itis
If you ever heard of the term “Sequel-itis” and wondered what a good example of film suffering from this malady would be, look no further than VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE.
The sequel to the surprisingly well made - and well acted - 2018 VENOM that introduced audiences to the (sometimes) villain, (sometimes) anti-hero, VENOM and the human/symbiot that he has bonded to (it makes sense in the first film) - this sequel looks and feels like a quick “money-grab” that is keeping this character “warm” for bigger things (I hope) down the road.
Directed by famed motion capture expert, Andy Serkis, VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE feels like a movie that was directed by a Special FX veteran for this film is long on special effects and short on what makes a film work - plot and character.
And that’s too bad for the 2018 VENOM film was a surprise in that while it had it’s CGI moments (and plenty of them), it also had interesting plot and characters and took full advantage of two of the better actors working today - Tom Hardy and Michelle Williams.
The sequel looked promising enough as both Hardy and Williams were back and Woody Harrelson was cast as the main villain (with Naomi Harris along as the villain’s sidekick) so some of the ingredients were there for a quality sequel.
Unfortunately, this sequel leaned heavily into the CGI-ness of the first film and made the CGI Alien Venom the focal point of the story, relegating the humans to the back. No actor was pushed further to the back than Williams who was stuck with a weak “damsel in distress” arc while Harrelson and Harris take turns over-acting the other making their pair of villains some of the weakest in recent comic-book movies memory.
And then there is the performance of Hardy as Eddie Brock. He is sleepwalking his way through this film, looking like he has very little interest in what is going on and just wants to grab his paycheck and get home.
Some of these sins could be forgiven if the CGI elements - and the battles between Venom and Carnage - are interesting. Unfortunately, they just are not - they are “fine”, but nothing interesting or original, so this film is destined to get washed off the shore (and memory) as quickly as a sandcastle is washed away on a beach.
If you are going to check out this flick, make sure you stay for the “end credits” scene (which is only, thankfully, about 2 minutes into the credits), it is the best part of this film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The sequel to the surprisingly well made - and well acted - 2018 VENOM that introduced audiences to the (sometimes) villain, (sometimes) anti-hero, VENOM and the human/symbiot that he has bonded to (it makes sense in the first film) - this sequel looks and feels like a quick “money-grab” that is keeping this character “warm” for bigger things (I hope) down the road.
Directed by famed motion capture expert, Andy Serkis, VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE feels like a movie that was directed by a Special FX veteran for this film is long on special effects and short on what makes a film work - plot and character.
And that’s too bad for the 2018 VENOM film was a surprise in that while it had it’s CGI moments (and plenty of them), it also had interesting plot and characters and took full advantage of two of the better actors working today - Tom Hardy and Michelle Williams.
The sequel looked promising enough as both Hardy and Williams were back and Woody Harrelson was cast as the main villain (with Naomi Harris along as the villain’s sidekick) so some of the ingredients were there for a quality sequel.
Unfortunately, this sequel leaned heavily into the CGI-ness of the first film and made the CGI Alien Venom the focal point of the story, relegating the humans to the back. No actor was pushed further to the back than Williams who was stuck with a weak “damsel in distress” arc while Harrelson and Harris take turns over-acting the other making their pair of villains some of the weakest in recent comic-book movies memory.
And then there is the performance of Hardy as Eddie Brock. He is sleepwalking his way through this film, looking like he has very little interest in what is going on and just wants to grab his paycheck and get home.
Some of these sins could be forgiven if the CGI elements - and the battles between Venom and Carnage - are interesting. Unfortunately, they just are not - they are “fine”, but nothing interesting or original, so this film is destined to get washed off the shore (and memory) as quickly as a sandcastle is washed away on a beach.
If you are going to check out this flick, make sure you stay for the “end credits” scene (which is only, thankfully, about 2 minutes into the credits), it is the best part of this film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 28 Weeks Later... (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
After being ravaged by the deadly “Rage” virus in “28 Days Later”, the nation of England is taking it’s first steps towards recovery under a U.S. lead United Nations force.
In 28 Weeks Later, society is slowing starting anew as thanks to a repopulated military zone on the Isle of Dogs. When a plane of natives arrives with two children, a sense of hope accompanies them, as the return of children is seen as a sign that the crisis is over and a better future is at hand.
The children are soon reunited with their father (Robert Carlyle), who is struggling to cope with the death of his wife, lost to the infected hordes months earlier. The fact that he panicked and left his wife to her fate is a secret that he has lived with, still he feels compelled to tell his children that their mother died despite his best efforts to help her.
As children are prone to do, the two children become bored with living in a compound and sneak past the blockade into the outer areas of London, areas that have not been fully reclaimed since the attack, declared off limits due to safety concerns.
Undaunted, the duo return to their former home to collect some of their personal items and there they make a startling discovery. Their mother is alive, and has been holding up inside their house since being left for dead by their father.
Once returned to the compound, it’s discovered the mother is a carrier of the virus, but does not manifest the disease nor it’s symptoms. Fascinated that they may have found a way to create a vaccine for the virus, the leader of the military medical community passes along her findings to her commanding officer. Unswayed by the possibility of creating a vaccine should future outbreaks occur, the commanding officer decides to follow standing orders and eradicate all signs of the virus which means killing the children’s’ mother.
Before the military can take action, a chance encounter causes the virus to spread and before long, the military is taking up arms in an effort to control the disease that is spreading like wildfire amongst the survivors. In short order, it becomes impossible to control the
infected, and the decision is made to kill anything that moves, infected or not in an effort to contain the outbreak.
During the chaos, the children are taken under protective care of a lone soldier and the doctor who is convinced that the children may hold the key to defeating the virus in their blood and must be protected at all costs. What follows is a chaotic race to get the children to safety while avoiding the infected and the soldiers in a deadly race against time for their very survival.
Following up the classic first film is a difficult task, and while not as good as the original, the sequel for the most part works. The characters and plot are paper thin, even by horror film standards, and there is little effort made to give the characters any back story or motivation beyond survival. The film is essentially one long segment of characters fleeing, yet there are some amazing visuals and chilling moments that will delight fans of the series and genre.
The images of London in desolation and of gas and fire flowing through the streets are haunting, and provide a none to subtle reference to the situation in Iraq, of a nation out of control.
Director has done a solid job of crafting a modern horror tale of a world gone mad, that raises ethical questions that will stay with viewers after the films conclusion.
In 28 Weeks Later, society is slowing starting anew as thanks to a repopulated military zone on the Isle of Dogs. When a plane of natives arrives with two children, a sense of hope accompanies them, as the return of children is seen as a sign that the crisis is over and a better future is at hand.
The children are soon reunited with their father (Robert Carlyle), who is struggling to cope with the death of his wife, lost to the infected hordes months earlier. The fact that he panicked and left his wife to her fate is a secret that he has lived with, still he feels compelled to tell his children that their mother died despite his best efforts to help her.
As children are prone to do, the two children become bored with living in a compound and sneak past the blockade into the outer areas of London, areas that have not been fully reclaimed since the attack, declared off limits due to safety concerns.
Undaunted, the duo return to their former home to collect some of their personal items and there they make a startling discovery. Their mother is alive, and has been holding up inside their house since being left for dead by their father.
Once returned to the compound, it’s discovered the mother is a carrier of the virus, but does not manifest the disease nor it’s symptoms. Fascinated that they may have found a way to create a vaccine for the virus, the leader of the military medical community passes along her findings to her commanding officer. Unswayed by the possibility of creating a vaccine should future outbreaks occur, the commanding officer decides to follow standing orders and eradicate all signs of the virus which means killing the children’s’ mother.
Before the military can take action, a chance encounter causes the virus to spread and before long, the military is taking up arms in an effort to control the disease that is spreading like wildfire amongst the survivors. In short order, it becomes impossible to control the
infected, and the decision is made to kill anything that moves, infected or not in an effort to contain the outbreak.
During the chaos, the children are taken under protective care of a lone soldier and the doctor who is convinced that the children may hold the key to defeating the virus in their blood and must be protected at all costs. What follows is a chaotic race to get the children to safety while avoiding the infected and the soldiers in a deadly race against time for their very survival.
Following up the classic first film is a difficult task, and while not as good as the original, the sequel for the most part works. The characters and plot are paper thin, even by horror film standards, and there is little effort made to give the characters any back story or motivation beyond survival. The film is essentially one long segment of characters fleeing, yet there are some amazing visuals and chilling moments that will delight fans of the series and genre.
The images of London in desolation and of gas and fire flowing through the streets are haunting, and provide a none to subtle reference to the situation in Iraq, of a nation out of control.
Director has done a solid job of crafting a modern horror tale of a world gone mad, that raises ethical questions that will stay with viewers after the films conclusion.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Grandma's Boy (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Life for video game tester is often filled with long hours, countless repetition and ever looming deadlines as the rush to get the latest games done and on budget is a key factor in the gaming industry. Often testers, much like the game coders toil away in obscurity with only their fellow gamers and personality quirks as their only companions. One such individual is a man named Alex (Allen Covert), a 36 year old professional game tester who suddenly finds himself out of his home thanks to a roommate who spends months of rent money at a local brothel.
Undaunted, Alex drifts from friend to friend often with disastrous results as he attempts to take stock of his situation and avoid the unpleasant alternative of moving in with his Grandmother (Doris Roberts) and her friends. With a deadline looming for his company’s latest game, a producer named Samantha (Linda Cardellini) is brought in to get the team on task. Faced with the reality of sleeping at his desk thanks to a rather embarrassing incident at a friend’s house, Alex is forced to reluctantly take refuge at his grandmothers.
Since Alex is the old man amongst the early 20’s testers who want nothing better than to break his unbeaten streak in head to head game challenges, Alex is forced to tell his co-workers that he spends his nights with three women and they wear him out. The sad truth is that Alex is worn out from 6:00 AM wakeups followed by three hours of chores before going to work. As if life was not complicated enough for Alex, the head game designer J.P. (Joel Moore), becomes more and more eccentric and this is only fueled by his interest in Samantha and his knowledge that Alex is attracted to her.
With a premise like this “Grandma’s Boys” has all of the ingredients to be a fun comedy that continues in the tradition of Adam Sandler’s comedies since his company produced the film. Sadly the film despite a few laughs becomes utterly predictable and drags in many places. The cast is enjoyable enough, but the jokes are too far between leaving the cast to carry the story which sadly is not strong enough to support the down time between jokes.
This is not to say that there are not some funny moments in the film as I can think of at least a half dozen good laughs. The issue is that when you have to wait 15-20 minutes between then in a film that is just over an hour and a half, it does tend to make the film drag. Also, much of the humor is derived from drug use. While it is funny in spots, the constant use of drugs, being stoned, and so on becomes old fast and makes the film seem like a one trick pony.
Covert who co wrote the film does his best in the film, but seems best suited as a supporting character as his character while likeable does not really connect with the audience the same way that one would with say Sandler, Schneider, or even Stiller. There are some good cameos in the film and Shirley Jones, Ms. Partridge herself is good as the older lady with a healthy libido, but I just could not help think that this film could have, and should have been much better than it was.
In the end, despite some good moments, there simply was not enough of them to save the film as the thin story, repetitive themes, and long gaps between good jokes ultimately sinks the film. It was nice to see a film about game testers as it is a group that is rife with comedic potential to be exploited, but sadly Grandma’s Boys barely scratches the surface.
Undaunted, Alex drifts from friend to friend often with disastrous results as he attempts to take stock of his situation and avoid the unpleasant alternative of moving in with his Grandmother (Doris Roberts) and her friends. With a deadline looming for his company’s latest game, a producer named Samantha (Linda Cardellini) is brought in to get the team on task. Faced with the reality of sleeping at his desk thanks to a rather embarrassing incident at a friend’s house, Alex is forced to reluctantly take refuge at his grandmothers.
Since Alex is the old man amongst the early 20’s testers who want nothing better than to break his unbeaten streak in head to head game challenges, Alex is forced to tell his co-workers that he spends his nights with three women and they wear him out. The sad truth is that Alex is worn out from 6:00 AM wakeups followed by three hours of chores before going to work. As if life was not complicated enough for Alex, the head game designer J.P. (Joel Moore), becomes more and more eccentric and this is only fueled by his interest in Samantha and his knowledge that Alex is attracted to her.
With a premise like this “Grandma’s Boys” has all of the ingredients to be a fun comedy that continues in the tradition of Adam Sandler’s comedies since his company produced the film. Sadly the film despite a few laughs becomes utterly predictable and drags in many places. The cast is enjoyable enough, but the jokes are too far between leaving the cast to carry the story which sadly is not strong enough to support the down time between jokes.
This is not to say that there are not some funny moments in the film as I can think of at least a half dozen good laughs. The issue is that when you have to wait 15-20 minutes between then in a film that is just over an hour and a half, it does tend to make the film drag. Also, much of the humor is derived from drug use. While it is funny in spots, the constant use of drugs, being stoned, and so on becomes old fast and makes the film seem like a one trick pony.
Covert who co wrote the film does his best in the film, but seems best suited as a supporting character as his character while likeable does not really connect with the audience the same way that one would with say Sandler, Schneider, or even Stiller. There are some good cameos in the film and Shirley Jones, Ms. Partridge herself is good as the older lady with a healthy libido, but I just could not help think that this film could have, and should have been much better than it was.
In the end, despite some good moments, there simply was not enough of them to save the film as the thin story, repetitive themes, and long gaps between good jokes ultimately sinks the film. It was nice to see a film about game testers as it is a group that is rife with comedic potential to be exploited, but sadly Grandma’s Boys barely scratches the surface.
System Activity Monitor - Battery, Free Memory
Productivity and Utilities
App
Take a deep dive into your iPhone/iPad to see whats going on inside. System Activity Monitor App, is...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
May 29, 2021
Continuation of the original story, with thrills and suspense throughout (1 more)
Great cast - Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe are particularly good
Plot Summary:
In a pre-title sequence, we return to “Day 1” of the events of the first movie to see how life in the Abbott’s home town changed forever when chaos reigned down from the skies.
Rolling forward 473 days later, the plot picks up on the life of Evelyn (Emily Blunt), Regan (Millicent Simmons) and Marcus (Noah Jupe), following the dramatic events of “A Quiet Place” and the death of husband/father Lee (John Kravinski).
The three, together with Evelyn’s newborn, set off on a perilous journey to find help.
Positives:
- Sequels often try to over-reach, lobbing-in over-the-top action and forgetting why the audience so loved the original hit. This sequel doesn't fall into that trap, continuing the story in a seamless way. We very quickly get reinvested in the character's dire situation (as their situation suddenly gets even more dire!).
- The pre-title sequence is perfectly paced and utterly thrilling. It's the sequence that most grabbed my attention so many months (years?!) ago when - pre-Covid - I first saw the trailer attached below. That bus!!
- The ensemble cast works well together. Cillian Murphy is a fine actor, filling the Krasinski-shaped hole. And Emily Blunt is as kick-ass and wonderful as always. But special 'attaboys' need to go to the two youngsters, Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe. They were impressive in the first movie but here have to carry even more of the dramatic action and are just brilliant.
- Technically, the film has Oscar-worthy strengths.
-- The editing here is first rate: many of the jump scares are well-signposted, but they still work thanks to the timing of the cuts.
-- The sound design is (as you would expect) fantastic: once again this is a movie where snacks should be banned!
-- The soundtrack, by Marco Beltrami, is great, building on his themes from the original but knowing when to shut-up as well!
Negatives:
- It's a genuine joy to see John Krasinski in the dramatic pre-title sequence reprising his role of Lee Abbott. But then his massive presence is missed for the rest of the movie. Perhaps killing him off at the end of part 1 wasn't such a good idea?
- There's a lot of 'grief and mourning' to contend with here, post- (or nearly post-) Covid. This didn't affect me. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man was 'not mentally ready' for it, and actively disliked the film as a result.
Summary Thoughts on "A Quiet Place Part II": Often a sequel doesn't live up to my expectations. Particularly so when I've loved the original AND had to wait SOOOOOOoooooooo long to see it. But this time I was not disappointed. I gave the original 5 stars. This naturally lacks the originality of the premise and is - imho - less good. But not by a great margin. It's still a rollercoaster thrill-ride that - at 97 minutes - doesn't overstay its welcome. Sometimes 'more of the same' is enough.
This is also a great movie to get people back into cinemas. Because, ladies and gents, since this is a MUST SEE on the big screen, and ideally in a screen with a great sound system.
As long as Krasinski stays at the helm, I'll personally be looking forwards to AQP - Part III, which I understand is in the works.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb or Facebook. Thanks.)
In a pre-title sequence, we return to “Day 1” of the events of the first movie to see how life in the Abbott’s home town changed forever when chaos reigned down from the skies.
Rolling forward 473 days later, the plot picks up on the life of Evelyn (Emily Blunt), Regan (Millicent Simmons) and Marcus (Noah Jupe), following the dramatic events of “A Quiet Place” and the death of husband/father Lee (John Kravinski).
The three, together with Evelyn’s newborn, set off on a perilous journey to find help.
Positives:
- Sequels often try to over-reach, lobbing-in over-the-top action and forgetting why the audience so loved the original hit. This sequel doesn't fall into that trap, continuing the story in a seamless way. We very quickly get reinvested in the character's dire situation (as their situation suddenly gets even more dire!).
- The pre-title sequence is perfectly paced and utterly thrilling. It's the sequence that most grabbed my attention so many months (years?!) ago when - pre-Covid - I first saw the trailer attached below. That bus!!
- The ensemble cast works well together. Cillian Murphy is a fine actor, filling the Krasinski-shaped hole. And Emily Blunt is as kick-ass and wonderful as always. But special 'attaboys' need to go to the two youngsters, Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe. They were impressive in the first movie but here have to carry even more of the dramatic action and are just brilliant.
- Technically, the film has Oscar-worthy strengths.
-- The editing here is first rate: many of the jump scares are well-signposted, but they still work thanks to the timing of the cuts.
-- The sound design is (as you would expect) fantastic: once again this is a movie where snacks should be banned!
-- The soundtrack, by Marco Beltrami, is great, building on his themes from the original but knowing when to shut-up as well!
Negatives:
- It's a genuine joy to see John Krasinski in the dramatic pre-title sequence reprising his role of Lee Abbott. But then his massive presence is missed for the rest of the movie. Perhaps killing him off at the end of part 1 wasn't such a good idea?
- There's a lot of 'grief and mourning' to contend with here, post- (or nearly post-) Covid. This didn't affect me. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man was 'not mentally ready' for it, and actively disliked the film as a result.
Summary Thoughts on "A Quiet Place Part II": Often a sequel doesn't live up to my expectations. Particularly so when I've loved the original AND had to wait SOOOOOOoooooooo long to see it. But this time I was not disappointed. I gave the original 5 stars. This naturally lacks the originality of the premise and is - imho - less good. But not by a great margin. It's still a rollercoaster thrill-ride that - at 97 minutes - doesn't overstay its welcome. Sometimes 'more of the same' is enough.
This is also a great movie to get people back into cinemas. Because, ladies and gents, since this is a MUST SEE on the big screen, and ideally in a screen with a great sound system.
As long as Krasinski stays at the helm, I'll personally be looking forwards to AQP - Part III, which I understand is in the works.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb or Facebook. Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Birds (1963) in Movies
Oct 28, 2020
Strong Suspense by the Master of Suspense
THE BIRDS is often listed amongst the great works of Alfred Hitchcock and I could never really understand the attraction. I thought it was a so-so fright-flick, so when I tripped across it on TV the other day, I started watching it with one eye, figuring I'd flip to something else in a few minutes.
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...then I caught myself getting into it.
Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier, THE BIRDS is told in Alfred Hithcock's suspenseful style to elevate a "pulp novel" idea of birds turning on humans to something much more tense than it had any right to be.
Newcomer Tippi Hendren stars as wealthy San Francisco socialite Melanie Daniels who chases suave charismatic lawyer Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) north of San Fran to his home of Bodego Bay. Will Melanie be able to win Mitch's heart over the objections of his mother (Jessica Tandy) and ex-girlfriend (Suzanne Pleshette)? We'll never know, for the Birds have their own idea of how this tale will end.
Hitchock, of course, earns his nickname "The Master of Suspense" with this film. He has some long scenes that grow with tension. Whether it's Melanie crossing the Bay in a boat (only to, finally, be attacked by a bird) or Mitch's mother going down a long hallway to find out what happened to a farmer friend of hers to the famous - and famously pulled off - scene of the birds gathering en masse on the jungle gym prior to attacking Melanie and the school children. Hitchcock knows exactly how to raise tension in these scenes and he does so marvelously. Even 56 years later, I found what little hairs I have standing up on the back of my neck and my body bending ever so slightly towards the screen during these scenes.
But...the thing that caught me this time around was the performances of the leads and the way Hitchock lets scenes play out with the actors. I've never been a big Rod Taylor fan, I've always thought he was "fine", but nothing special. He is much more than "fine" in this film. It's probably the best work I've ever seen him do. Jessica Tandy, of course, as the mother is wonderfully cold and distant to begin with and slowly moves to close to madness and then understanding, it is a wonderfully understated performance showcasing a superb theater actress. As is Pleshette's turn as school teacher Annie. Her scenes with Hendren were laced (I'm sure purposely) with an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two female characters.
But...the star of this film is Tippi Hendren, beyond a doubt. Much has been made of the cruelty and misogynistic ways that Hitchock treated and abused Hendren in the making of this film. But her performance shone as the gold-digging, fun loving Melanie who descends into the depths as the film progresses. I've never thought much of her as a performer, but will have to check out other films of hers (most notably, Hitchock's MARNIE).
The special effects - which were cutting edge and earned an Oscar nomination back in the day - are dated, but that adds to the charm of the film (at least for me). I'm sure they "wowed" the audience in 1963, so I'll cut them some slack.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pacing, acting and SUSPENSE of this film. It has held up very well and if you haven't seen THE BIRDS in awhile, I recommend you check it out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
156Reviews (7 KP) rated Dark Waters (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
Films are important.
Films are important to us all for many different reasons, they show what we are, what we can be, what we aspire to be, of who we are. Sometimes that comes in the form of escapism, of dreaming that we can be better, Mark Ruffalo is no stranger to the genre I'm referring to, sometimes shows us our darkest fears and that we can overcome them, and sometimes, it shows us just how low, we as people can get, and never offer any kind of redemption. Dark Waters manages to be all of these things. A small intro before the film began had me franticly signing up to numerous petitions the second the film ended, joining a cause I didn't even know existed before I sat down to watch. This is why film is important, and why you should watch Dark Waters as soon as you can. So why the 3 out of 5 rating? Surely a film that EVERYONE should watch should get top marks, right? Unfortunately not.
The film begins with Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), a corporate defence attorney, whose office is visited by a farmer from his home town, trying to raise a legal case against DuPont, a multi-billion dollar business, the towns biggest employer, and a chemical company at the heart of potentially poisoning the towns water supply. As Billot investigates the scale of the issue, and its inevitable cover up, it all becomes alarmingly clear. Thousands of people are being poisoned, they're health will likely deteriorate and life threatening illnesses are now a high probability. To take a line from the recent movie Bombshell “somebody has to stand up, somebody has to get mad.”
That anger that should be felt, but for all the terrifying facts about the poisoning these people received on a daily basis, it never comes, the rage should be palpable. Instead it opts for giving us all the information, teaching about regulation and government intervention, or lack thereof, and the only temper in the film shows comes as a heated exchange in a board room that blows over as soon as it comes, and protesters outside courtrooms for fleeting moments throughout the movie. It should be seething instead of showing, giving us the knowledge we need through gritted teeth, not clinical, scientific and impersonal.
Dark Waters is off the mark with its tone, Mark Ruffalo's high-priced lawyer is too uncertain, a little too every-man, never really portrayed a hot-shot or an underdog, and the supporting cast fall into “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy” far too easily with no exploration into any depth of character. One scene has a DuPont representative, shown in great detail, every undisputable, despicable thing that his company has done to these people, and listens attentively, never upset or defiant but instead seeming slightly bored, before getting up and leaving. Every scene feels like it should be emotionally hard-hitting but never raises above a tap on the shoulder.
As the lesson goes on, the complete lack of morals DuPont has, becomes shockingly clear as they drag the case on for as long as they can, making sure Billot's firm spend more money and time than they are willing to pay. Bilot's home life becomes strained, which distracts from the main thread more than adds to it plot, he becomes distant from his wife, a woefully underused Anne Hathaway, and his health deteriorates under the weight of fighting, and in the end, the conclusion is murkier than the water supply. But he still fights, and in real life, Rob Billot is still fighting to this day to help the West Virginia community, and to change the way the corporations are regulated worldwide.
This film is important, and everyone should see it because it's message, just don't see it for its entertainment value, because that's few and far between.
Films are important to us all for many different reasons, they show what we are, what we can be, what we aspire to be, of who we are. Sometimes that comes in the form of escapism, of dreaming that we can be better, Mark Ruffalo is no stranger to the genre I'm referring to, sometimes shows us our darkest fears and that we can overcome them, and sometimes, it shows us just how low, we as people can get, and never offer any kind of redemption. Dark Waters manages to be all of these things. A small intro before the film began had me franticly signing up to numerous petitions the second the film ended, joining a cause I didn't even know existed before I sat down to watch. This is why film is important, and why you should watch Dark Waters as soon as you can. So why the 3 out of 5 rating? Surely a film that EVERYONE should watch should get top marks, right? Unfortunately not.
The film begins with Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo), a corporate defence attorney, whose office is visited by a farmer from his home town, trying to raise a legal case against DuPont, a multi-billion dollar business, the towns biggest employer, and a chemical company at the heart of potentially poisoning the towns water supply. As Billot investigates the scale of the issue, and its inevitable cover up, it all becomes alarmingly clear. Thousands of people are being poisoned, they're health will likely deteriorate and life threatening illnesses are now a high probability. To take a line from the recent movie Bombshell “somebody has to stand up, somebody has to get mad.”
That anger that should be felt, but for all the terrifying facts about the poisoning these people received on a daily basis, it never comes, the rage should be palpable. Instead it opts for giving us all the information, teaching about regulation and government intervention, or lack thereof, and the only temper in the film shows comes as a heated exchange in a board room that blows over as soon as it comes, and protesters outside courtrooms for fleeting moments throughout the movie. It should be seething instead of showing, giving us the knowledge we need through gritted teeth, not clinical, scientific and impersonal.
Dark Waters is off the mark with its tone, Mark Ruffalo's high-priced lawyer is too uncertain, a little too every-man, never really portrayed a hot-shot or an underdog, and the supporting cast fall into “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy” far too easily with no exploration into any depth of character. One scene has a DuPont representative, shown in great detail, every undisputable, despicable thing that his company has done to these people, and listens attentively, never upset or defiant but instead seeming slightly bored, before getting up and leaving. Every scene feels like it should be emotionally hard-hitting but never raises above a tap on the shoulder.
As the lesson goes on, the complete lack of morals DuPont has, becomes shockingly clear as they drag the case on for as long as they can, making sure Billot's firm spend more money and time than they are willing to pay. Bilot's home life becomes strained, which distracts from the main thread more than adds to it plot, he becomes distant from his wife, a woefully underused Anne Hathaway, and his health deteriorates under the weight of fighting, and in the end, the conclusion is murkier than the water supply. But he still fights, and in real life, Rob Billot is still fighting to this day to help the West Virginia community, and to change the way the corporations are regulated worldwide.
This film is important, and everyone should see it because it's message, just don't see it for its entertainment value, because that's few and far between.