Search
Search results
Kevin Phillipson (10072 KP) rated Ted (2012) in Movies
Mar 18, 2018
Darren (1599 KP) rated 50/50 (2011) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Verdict This comedy drama will make you laugh but it will also make you cry. The actor from everyone is among some of the best you will see with ever character being a believable and someone who everyone could have in their own lives. I found the comedy level is the perfect level to complement the serious nature of the movie. This is a movie that everyone will enjoy it has everything you need in a good movie without have to have anything over the top happening, you should watch this movie.
Story Mark 10/10 Perfect story
Comedy Mark 9/10 Light heart comedy on serious issue
Friendship Chemistry Mark 10/10 Adam and Kyle look like lifelong friends
Romantic Chemistry Mark 9/10 Adam chemistry with Katherine work perfectly and you can see Adam and Rachael falling apart
Star Performances Joseph Gordon Levitt he put in one of the best performance of the year and of his career so far.
Anna Kendrick great performance to keeping up her good record of strong performances
Seth Rogen most likely his best performance of his career right up there with his performance in Funny People.
Favourite Character I have to go with Adam just seeing how he deals with the situation is just incredible.
Least Favourite Character Rachael watch and you will see why.
Best Part It’s pretty much perfect never to funny or sad.
Worst Part Hard to find one
Best Quote Adam ‘’See, but… that’s bullshit. That’s what everyone has been telling me since the beginning. “Oh, you’re gonna be okay,” and “Oh, everything’s fine,” and like, it’s not… It makes it worse… that no one will just come out and say it. Like, “hey man, you’re gonna die.”
Similar Too – Funny People
https://moviesreview101.com/2011/11/23/5050-2011/
Story Mark 10/10 Perfect story
Comedy Mark 9/10 Light heart comedy on serious issue
Friendship Chemistry Mark 10/10 Adam and Kyle look like lifelong friends
Romantic Chemistry Mark 9/10 Adam chemistry with Katherine work perfectly and you can see Adam and Rachael falling apart
Star Performances Joseph Gordon Levitt he put in one of the best performance of the year and of his career so far.
Anna Kendrick great performance to keeping up her good record of strong performances
Seth Rogen most likely his best performance of his career right up there with his performance in Funny People.
Favourite Character I have to go with Adam just seeing how he deals with the situation is just incredible.
Least Favourite Character Rachael watch and you will see why.
Best Part It’s pretty much perfect never to funny or sad.
Worst Part Hard to find one
Best Quote Adam ‘’See, but… that’s bullshit. That’s what everyone has been telling me since the beginning. “Oh, you’re gonna be okay,” and “Oh, everything’s fine,” and like, it’s not… It makes it worse… that no one will just come out and say it. Like, “hey man, you’re gonna die.”
Similar Too – Funny People
https://moviesreview101.com/2011/11/23/5050-2011/
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Dolls (1987) in Movies
Feb 13, 2021
Plain and simple - Dolls is a belting 80s horror, overflowing with fantastic effects work, unsettling monster designs, and a fantastic cast all whilst having a sub text about how it's ok to still be a child at heart.
A complete shift for Stuart Gordon from his work on Re-Animator a couple of years earlier, but equally as bonkers. It packs in a fair helping of gore, but still feels weirdly family friendly. Perhaps this is due to the lead child character, played by a great Carrie Lorraine. The supporting cast manages to be a selection of likable, and equally unlikable characters. Highlights for me are the creepy but oddly wholesome, if slightly murderous, older couple who inhabit the house that the narrative takes place in, played by Guy Rolfe and Hilary Mason.
As mentioned, the practical work is incredible. The dolls' movements are kept hidden for a lot of the runtime, but when you see them in all their glory just over the halfway mark, the pay off is completely worth it.
Dolls is hugely memorable in all the right ways. A hidden gem of a horror.
A complete shift for Stuart Gordon from his work on Re-Animator a couple of years earlier, but equally as bonkers. It packs in a fair helping of gore, but still feels weirdly family friendly. Perhaps this is due to the lead child character, played by a great Carrie Lorraine. The supporting cast manages to be a selection of likable, and equally unlikable characters. Highlights for me are the creepy but oddly wholesome, if slightly murderous, older couple who inhabit the house that the narrative takes place in, played by Guy Rolfe and Hilary Mason.
As mentioned, the practical work is incredible. The dolls' movements are kept hidden for a lot of the runtime, but when you see them in all their glory just over the halfway mark, the pay off is completely worth it.
Dolls is hugely memorable in all the right ways. A hidden gem of a horror.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Bring Me Home in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
To tell the truth, despite knowing that Alan Titchmarsh is a celebrity gardener and TV presenter, I was unaware that he was also a novelist; so I honestly had no idea what to expect. <i>Bring Me Home</i>, Titchmarsh’s latest piece of fiction, is located in the Scottish Highlands and tells the life story of Charlie Stuart who lives in Castle Sodhail.
The opening chapter is set in the year 2000 at the end of a summer party hosted by Charlie in the castle grounds. We find out that Charlie needs to tell his children about something he has done and he is worried about their reactions. I immediately assumed this would be something along the lines of financial difficulties: someone who owns a castle must be in need of a vast amount of money. This assumption, however, was way off the mark.
The subsequent chapters tell of Charlie’s past, beginning in 1960, when he was ten years old, and progressing chronologically until 2000 where we, once again, meet with the familiar opening scene. Throughout these sections we read of Egglestone Academy in Inverness, which he attended with his friend, Gordon Mackenzie; we learn of his mother’s death and how he copes with his new, typically not very nice, stepmother. He marries a childhood friend, Eleanor – this happened a bit too suddenly in my view – and this is where things begin to transpire; events which could be what Charlie wants to speak to his children about.
To be frank, I sometimes found the narrative a little boring, particularly throughout the first half in which, I felt, nothing particularly significant occurred. The latter half was better with more events taking place, which made me wonder how things would be resolved. There was one part of the storyline which, although keeps Gordon in the book as an important character, felt rather pointless particularly as it had nothing to do with the final few chapters.
One thing I did like about this book was that Titchmarsh and included relevant quotes from various sources at the beginning of each chapter. These always related in some way to what that particular chapter was about. As I have not read any other books by the author, I do not know if this was a one off idea or whether he always does this, but it reminded me of the character Gordon Mackenzie who has a literary quote for every occasion.
Overall I did not think much of this novel but it was not terrible. The writing style was easy to read and understand but I personally thought the storyline needed to be stronger.
To tell the truth, despite knowing that Alan Titchmarsh is a celebrity gardener and TV presenter, I was unaware that he was also a novelist; so I honestly had no idea what to expect. <i>Bring Me Home</i>, Titchmarsh’s latest piece of fiction, is located in the Scottish Highlands and tells the life story of Charlie Stuart who lives in Castle Sodhail.
The opening chapter is set in the year 2000 at the end of a summer party hosted by Charlie in the castle grounds. We find out that Charlie needs to tell his children about something he has done and he is worried about their reactions. I immediately assumed this would be something along the lines of financial difficulties: someone who owns a castle must be in need of a vast amount of money. This assumption, however, was way off the mark.
The subsequent chapters tell of Charlie’s past, beginning in 1960, when he was ten years old, and progressing chronologically until 2000 where we, once again, meet with the familiar opening scene. Throughout these sections we read of Egglestone Academy in Inverness, which he attended with his friend, Gordon Mackenzie; we learn of his mother’s death and how he copes with his new, typically not very nice, stepmother. He marries a childhood friend, Eleanor – this happened a bit too suddenly in my view – and this is where things begin to transpire; events which could be what Charlie wants to speak to his children about.
To be frank, I sometimes found the narrative a little boring, particularly throughout the first half in which, I felt, nothing particularly significant occurred. The latter half was better with more events taking place, which made me wonder how things would be resolved. There was one part of the storyline which, although keeps Gordon in the book as an important character, felt rather pointless particularly as it had nothing to do with the final few chapters.
One thing I did like about this book was that Titchmarsh and included relevant quotes from various sources at the beginning of each chapter. These always related in some way to what that particular chapter was about. As I have not read any other books by the author, I do not know if this was a one off idea or whether he always does this, but it reminded me of the character Gordon Mackenzie who has a literary quote for every occasion.
Overall I did not think much of this novel but it was not terrible. The writing style was easy to read and understand but I personally thought the storyline needed to be stronger.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Minology II The Disquisitive Saga Of Filbert Monkston in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
What if scientists have been wrong about the way the human body works? What if there are thousands of tiny creatures controlling each and every organ, making sure everything in the body is in working order? This is the idea that Mark Murphy has based his books upon. These creatures are called min and not only do they help the body to function; they have their own lives to deal with as well.
<i>Minology II: The Disquisitive Saga of Filbert Monkston</i> is the second of the <i>Minology stories</i>. Filbert is a seventeen-year-old min who has grown up in the Gutlands as part of the Kushnick tribe. However he is beginning to question their religion. Why do they have these beliefs? Why do they sacrifice food? An argument with his father sparks off a series of events that cause trouble for many min.
After storming off, Filbert and his friend Gordon come into contact with a strange group of travellers. Not realizing how dangerous they are, Filbert and Gordon get drawn into a trap. Baron Floppy, Filbert’s father, on the other hand, regrets the outburst at his son and is extremely worried when he never returns home. Along with a search party he goes out to find his son. As the story leads up to reuniting the father and son an old mystery is uncovered and finally solved after many years of it being left unanswered.
As with the first <i>Minology</i> book, this is a lighthearted read containing a lot of humour. Many of the min are not the most intelligent of creatures resulting in rather a lot of misunderstandings which can be particularly amusing. The storyline itself can be quite gripping as the mystery unravels.
Although <i>Minology II</i> does not exactly follow on from the previous novel, it would be handy to read the books in order as the first story provides more information about who the min are and a little about the body they are inhabiting.
Overall, <i>Minology II</i> is a good short read, however could have done with another proof read before publication. It is a shame that the writer cannot tell the difference between the words ‘were’ and ‘where’!
What if scientists have been wrong about the way the human body works? What if there are thousands of tiny creatures controlling each and every organ, making sure everything in the body is in working order? This is the idea that Mark Murphy has based his books upon. These creatures are called min and not only do they help the body to function; they have their own lives to deal with as well.
<i>Minology II: The Disquisitive Saga of Filbert Monkston</i> is the second of the <i>Minology stories</i>. Filbert is a seventeen-year-old min who has grown up in the Gutlands as part of the Kushnick tribe. However he is beginning to question their religion. Why do they have these beliefs? Why do they sacrifice food? An argument with his father sparks off a series of events that cause trouble for many min.
After storming off, Filbert and his friend Gordon come into contact with a strange group of travellers. Not realizing how dangerous they are, Filbert and Gordon get drawn into a trap. Baron Floppy, Filbert’s father, on the other hand, regrets the outburst at his son and is extremely worried when he never returns home. Along with a search party he goes out to find his son. As the story leads up to reuniting the father and son an old mystery is uncovered and finally solved after many years of it being left unanswered.
As with the first <i>Minology</i> book, this is a lighthearted read containing a lot of humour. Many of the min are not the most intelligent of creatures resulting in rather a lot of misunderstandings which can be particularly amusing. The storyline itself can be quite gripping as the mystery unravels.
Although <i>Minology II</i> does not exactly follow on from the previous novel, it would be handy to read the books in order as the first story provides more information about who the min are and a little about the body they are inhabiting.
Overall, <i>Minology II</i> is a good short read, however could have done with another proof read before publication. It is a shame that the writer cannot tell the difference between the words ‘were’ and ‘where’!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Ted 2 (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The foul-mouthed but lovable Ted is back in a brand new adventure bigger and more outrageous than the first film. The new film opens with Ted (Seth MacFarlane), marrying Tami-Lynn and in the first five minutes floors the audience with drug, Gay, and sex jokes, with a Flash Gordon sighting and a musical number to boot.
When Ted attempts to adopt a baby, he triggers a chain of events into motion that cause him to be classified as property. As such he has no legal rights and cannot hold a job, have a bank account, adopt, and marry which causes everything Ted has worked for to vanish.
Thankfully for Ted his best friend John (Mark Wahlberg), is by his side no matter what and helps him find a new lawyer named Samantha (Amanda Seyfried), who decides to take on the case and resolves to get Ted recognized as a person.
Naturally things do not go as planned as Ted and John keep getting into trouble despite their best intentions and combined with a threat from Ted’s past emerging once again, things are looking bleak indeed.
Along the way there are more than a few celebrity cameos and tons of rude, crude, and often very funny jokes to go along with the constant drug humor. Ted is not for everyone but there is a softer side to the character, and Mac Farlane keeps things moving at a fast clip, which never lets the film drag on without unleashing a new barrage of comedic situations on the audience.
If you liked the first film, you will likely enjoy “Ted 2” as I found it a very pleasant and often funny film that actually improved on the first film.
http://sknr.net/2015/06/26/ted-2/
When Ted attempts to adopt a baby, he triggers a chain of events into motion that cause him to be classified as property. As such he has no legal rights and cannot hold a job, have a bank account, adopt, and marry which causes everything Ted has worked for to vanish.
Thankfully for Ted his best friend John (Mark Wahlberg), is by his side no matter what and helps him find a new lawyer named Samantha (Amanda Seyfried), who decides to take on the case and resolves to get Ted recognized as a person.
Naturally things do not go as planned as Ted and John keep getting into trouble despite their best intentions and combined with a threat from Ted’s past emerging once again, things are looking bleak indeed.
Along the way there are more than a few celebrity cameos and tons of rude, crude, and often very funny jokes to go along with the constant drug humor. Ted is not for everyone but there is a softer side to the character, and Mac Farlane keeps things moving at a fast clip, which never lets the film drag on without unleashing a new barrage of comedic situations on the audience.
If you liked the first film, you will likely enjoy “Ted 2” as I found it a very pleasant and often funny film that actually improved on the first film.
http://sknr.net/2015/06/26/ted-2/
MichaelS (0 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Feb 20, 2018
Thor has always been the red headed stepchild of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He's there, but nobody really seems to care all that much. His presence in the Avengers films is always more in the background, and his solo movies have been mediocre at best. Nothing that warrants more than one viewing. Now, with a healthy dose of Flash Gordon flair, Thor finally gets a movie that elevates this particular branch of the MCU to good, popcorn fun.
Visually, the movie is splendid. Bright colors and sweeping visuals create great backgrounds and settings. The hand to hand fights are impactful, and a aerial chase scene is exciting, and well shot. The music smacks of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies, giving it a very retro feel. And the director is obviously a big fan of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song". It's used in 2 fight scenes, which seems redundant, as Kiss' "God Of Thunder", or AC/DC's "Thunderstruck" would've been welcome additions.
But the film suffers from the same shortcomings as most other Marvel movies. First, the over reliance on humor continues to be crutch for the entire MCU. Way too often, the plot stops dead in it's track to tell a joke, and humor is injected into serious situations, completely erasing any feeling of something actually being at stake. After all, if the characters are cracking jokes, what they're fighting for must not be that important.
Once again, Marvel shits the bed when it comes to having a threatening villain. As Hela, Cate Blanchett is a step up from the useless villains Marvel usually produces, but even so, we're never really sure what exactly she's after. And when Thor devises a plan to stop her, it seemed to me that plan was simply doing Hela was out to accomplish in the first place. Other than that, she talks slow, walks, slow, and flicks her wrists a lot for various reasons.
The biggest problem with this movie is indicative of the entire MCU at this point. These movies simply can not stand on their own. They're so dependent on the viewer having seen all the other Marvel movies, that you'll be lost on many plot points if you go into this movie cold. Cameos by characters from other Marvel movies serve no point, other than to remind you that this movie is a part of a "cinematic universe"...two words, and a concept, I'd be glad to never deal with again.
Chris Hemsworth is solid as Thor, but he's always been rather unremarkable in the role. He does have a good chemistry with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner/Hulk, but it's never really explained how Hulk was suddenly able to be such a chatterbox. Tessa Thompson is a welcome addition as Valkyrie. She has more layers to her character than any other in the movie, and looks great in tight leather. Tom Hiddleston is back...again...as Loki. It's never a good thing when the villain of your movie is more popular than the hero, and this movie completes Loki's transformation into full blown good guy. So, there's that.
All that being said, the movie is undeniable fun. It's has a very retro, Flash Gordon feel to it. Right down to a synthesized musical score that is a mixture of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies. The action consists mostly of hand to hand fights, and for the most part, they're done very well. The final "three fights at once" scenario is reminiscent of movies like Return Of The Jedi, where the effects of all separate fights merge into one.
It's a fun, popcorn movie, and a major step up from the first two Thor movies. It's nothing great, or even memorable. But there's enough here to warrant additional viewings, and that's a first for this branch of the Marvel franchise.
Visually, the movie is splendid. Bright colors and sweeping visuals create great backgrounds and settings. The hand to hand fights are impactful, and a aerial chase scene is exciting, and well shot. The music smacks of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies, giving it a very retro feel. And the director is obviously a big fan of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song". It's used in 2 fight scenes, which seems redundant, as Kiss' "God Of Thunder", or AC/DC's "Thunderstruck" would've been welcome additions.
But the film suffers from the same shortcomings as most other Marvel movies. First, the over reliance on humor continues to be crutch for the entire MCU. Way too often, the plot stops dead in it's track to tell a joke, and humor is injected into serious situations, completely erasing any feeling of something actually being at stake. After all, if the characters are cracking jokes, what they're fighting for must not be that important.
Once again, Marvel shits the bed when it comes to having a threatening villain. As Hela, Cate Blanchett is a step up from the useless villains Marvel usually produces, but even so, we're never really sure what exactly she's after. And when Thor devises a plan to stop her, it seemed to me that plan was simply doing Hela was out to accomplish in the first place. Other than that, she talks slow, walks, slow, and flicks her wrists a lot for various reasons.
The biggest problem with this movie is indicative of the entire MCU at this point. These movies simply can not stand on their own. They're so dependent on the viewer having seen all the other Marvel movies, that you'll be lost on many plot points if you go into this movie cold. Cameos by characters from other Marvel movies serve no point, other than to remind you that this movie is a part of a "cinematic universe"...two words, and a concept, I'd be glad to never deal with again.
Chris Hemsworth is solid as Thor, but he's always been rather unremarkable in the role. He does have a good chemistry with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner/Hulk, but it's never really explained how Hulk was suddenly able to be such a chatterbox. Tessa Thompson is a welcome addition as Valkyrie. She has more layers to her character than any other in the movie, and looks great in tight leather. Tom Hiddleston is back...again...as Loki. It's never a good thing when the villain of your movie is more popular than the hero, and this movie completes Loki's transformation into full blown good guy. So, there's that.
All that being said, the movie is undeniable fun. It's has a very retro, Flash Gordon feel to it. Right down to a synthesized musical score that is a mixture of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies. The action consists mostly of hand to hand fights, and for the most part, they're done very well. The final "three fights at once" scenario is reminiscent of movies like Return Of The Jedi, where the effects of all separate fights merge into one.
It's a fun, popcorn movie, and a major step up from the first two Thor movies. It's nothing great, or even memorable. But there's enough here to warrant additional viewings, and that's a first for this branch of the Marvel franchise.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Mar 28, 2021
Strong Ensemble Work
The good thing about my yearly exercise to check out all of the Oscar Nominated films in the "Major" Categories is that it forces me to watch films that are "one my list" but I just haven't gotten to them. THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is one of those types of films - an Aaron Sorkin Written and Directed project with a stellar cast about an important moment in United States History.
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7799 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020 (Updated Oct 19, 2020)
Fascinating
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is Aaron Sorkin’s second foray into directing, a dramatisation of the true story of 7 people on trial following the events at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
The film centres around what is effectively a sham of a trial, and aside from a few flashbacks and prep scenes, it is virtually set entirely in the courtroom for the 2+ hour duration. There aren’t many films that can pull this off and aside from a slight lull in the middle, The Trial of the Chicago 7 manages this impressively well and this is mainly down to Aaron Sorkin himself and his rather stellar cast. It also helps that the story itself is a fascinating one. I knew nothing about the trial, the people or even the protests in Chicago, so watching this was a rather disturbing eye opener. It’s a truly compelling and interesting story which has a great deal of relevance to today’s politics – Netflix Ken what they were doing releasing this close to election time!
I’m a long time fan of Sorkin’s writing and alongside his directing, it definitely does not disappoint here. His usual sharp and quick witted dialogue is ever present and is delivered flawless by the marvellous cast. Sorkin even manages to throw in a few laughs which considering the rather serious aspects of the story is no mean feat, and these are often delivered from the ‘bromance’ between Sacha Baron Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman and Jeremy Strong’s Jerry Rubin. However every single member of this ensemble cast shines individually. From Mark Rylance’s exasperated lawyer William Kunstler to Frank Langella’s rather evil and incompetent judge, from Joseph Gordon Levitt’s prosecutor with a conscience to Eddie Redmayne’s intellectual Hayden. Even Michael Keaton who has a blink and you’ll miss it role as a former Attorney General is brilliant. I couldn’t pinpoint a single person in this case who excels above another as they are all fantastic.
I don’t believe this film is perfect. There is a slight lull in the middle due to the mostly courtroom setting, even with the cracking dialogue, and whilst I did enjoy Sorkin’s directing style, I did wonder if this film looked a little too slick and polished overall. The story is dark, gritty and rather disturbing when you think of the political and racial undertones and motivations, and the film itself doesn’t always reflect this – the ending especially is very moving, but feels a little too happy and Hollywood. I’d also question why not all of the major characters were included in the intertitles detailing what happened to the individuals after the events of this film. Considering it was such a balanced cast, it seemed odd not to include all the main characters especially for those who don’t know the real life history.
Overall this is a fantastic dialogue and performance driven film. Sorkin is without a doubt a master of the legal and political drama, and if you’re a fan of his earlier work then this is definitely one worth watching. Whilst “enjoyable” may not be the most appropriate word considering the subject matter, this is a hugely interesting and entertaining watch.
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
Mar 13, 2019
Masterful visuals, including many practical effects wonders (1 more)
Extraordinary score by Hans Zimmer
Relationships bud in the film, but feel forced (1 more)
A few plot-holes, albeit none thoroughly distracting
Contains spoilers, click to show
With two of the most scathing reviews I’ve written under my belt, I figured it was time to write about my favorite movie of all time, Christopher Nolan’s “Inception.”
“Inception” revolves around Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a spy who uses military-grade technology and shared dreams to extract information from his marks. He and his team are unwittingly tested by their latest target, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe) for recruitment into a different kind of job: Inception, a type of job using the same skills and technology to implant an idea. In particular, Saito calls on Cobb to plant an idea on his business competitor, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In spite of his reluctancy about this type of job, Saito’s offer to clear Cobb of a murder charge sways Cobb in favor of taking the job.
Cobb gathers new help, including Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect he finds capable of creating complex labyrinths. With the help of a deep sedative, the team is able to make Fischer have dreams within dreams within dreams, a method that makes the mark more receptive to the implanted idea. It comes with a cost, though: The dreams become more unstable as they continue going deeper into the dream world, and the sedative itself creates the risk of actual death within the dream.
First of all, let’s talk cast. Already, we’ve got four top-grade talents named, but we also have Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Cobb’s point man, Tom Hardy as Eames, a forger, and additional roles filled by Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. Nolan did not lack for talent in this one, and by gosh it shows.
Visually, “Inception” excels most with making the impossible as real as cinema can make it. Throughout the film, characters are able to manipulate the rules of the dream world, making for moments where fruit explodes, cities bend, and stairwells become endless. Beyond portraying the impossible, though, the film has to show the real world, too. In those scenes, an aesthetic that can’t exactly be placed takes over. The technology has a slightly retro-futuristic feel to it, while the fashion and settings rely on classic tastes. Even Hans Zimmer’s score, which samples from the work of vocalist Edith Piaf, contributes to the chronological ambiguity of the movie. By not being able to place the film’s setting in any particular year or even decade, it seems prepackaged to become a classic film.
Speaking of Zimmer, he’s is at his best with this score. The complexity of the film reflects in a layered score, and listening to it on its own is its own sort of treat. It’s one of those symphonic recordings that the listener will pick out something they never noticed before every time.
But even above the stellar cast and visuals that have inspired reality-bending sequences in films since, this film’s biggest success is its use of approachable themes and concepts to tell a story within a story. Nearly a decade after its initial release, fans have widely circulated the idea that “Inception” is a film about storytelling. Concepts as basic as nesting stories within stories play out many ways across the plot. It also plays with common experiences in dreams, turning experiences like the feeling of falling into tools for Cobb’s team to exploit. Essentially, if you can dream, you already have a primer in this film’s core principles.
It’s not without flaws, as no film is. Certain moments fail to hold up upon closer inspection. For instance, the relationship between Ariadne and Arthur comes across forced. Those moments aside, from its foreshadowing opening to its meaningfully open-ended ending, “Inception” is an absolute marvel.
“Inception” revolves around Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a spy who uses military-grade technology and shared dreams to extract information from his marks. He and his team are unwittingly tested by their latest target, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe) for recruitment into a different kind of job: Inception, a type of job using the same skills and technology to implant an idea. In particular, Saito calls on Cobb to plant an idea on his business competitor, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In spite of his reluctancy about this type of job, Saito’s offer to clear Cobb of a murder charge sways Cobb in favor of taking the job.
Cobb gathers new help, including Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect he finds capable of creating complex labyrinths. With the help of a deep sedative, the team is able to make Fischer have dreams within dreams within dreams, a method that makes the mark more receptive to the implanted idea. It comes with a cost, though: The dreams become more unstable as they continue going deeper into the dream world, and the sedative itself creates the risk of actual death within the dream.
First of all, let’s talk cast. Already, we’ve got four top-grade talents named, but we also have Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Cobb’s point man, Tom Hardy as Eames, a forger, and additional roles filled by Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. Nolan did not lack for talent in this one, and by gosh it shows.
Visually, “Inception” excels most with making the impossible as real as cinema can make it. Throughout the film, characters are able to manipulate the rules of the dream world, making for moments where fruit explodes, cities bend, and stairwells become endless. Beyond portraying the impossible, though, the film has to show the real world, too. In those scenes, an aesthetic that can’t exactly be placed takes over. The technology has a slightly retro-futuristic feel to it, while the fashion and settings rely on classic tastes. Even Hans Zimmer’s score, which samples from the work of vocalist Edith Piaf, contributes to the chronological ambiguity of the movie. By not being able to place the film’s setting in any particular year or even decade, it seems prepackaged to become a classic film.
Speaking of Zimmer, he’s is at his best with this score. The complexity of the film reflects in a layered score, and listening to it on its own is its own sort of treat. It’s one of those symphonic recordings that the listener will pick out something they never noticed before every time.
But even above the stellar cast and visuals that have inspired reality-bending sequences in films since, this film’s biggest success is its use of approachable themes and concepts to tell a story within a story. Nearly a decade after its initial release, fans have widely circulated the idea that “Inception” is a film about storytelling. Concepts as basic as nesting stories within stories play out many ways across the plot. It also plays with common experiences in dreams, turning experiences like the feeling of falling into tools for Cobb’s team to exploit. Essentially, if you can dream, you already have a primer in this film’s core principles.
It’s not without flaws, as no film is. Certain moments fail to hold up upon closer inspection. For instance, the relationship between Ariadne and Arthur comes across forced. Those moments aside, from its foreshadowing opening to its meaningfully open-ended ending, “Inception” is an absolute marvel.