Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Green Lantern (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Bursting onto the screen with a winning combination of action and dazzling effects DC Comics’ “The Green Lantern” has arrived to the delight of comic fans the world over. The film stars Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan, a talented but cocky test pilot who is haunted by the untimely passing of his father during a test flight when young Hal was a child.
Hal avoids commitment and leads his life as a brash individual who does things his way and answers to no one.
After a close call during a training flight that puts him at odds with his employer, Hal is enveloped by a green ball of energy which transports him to a crash site where he encounters a dying alien. While unsure of what he is seeing, Hal attempts to comfort and aid the alien creature who informs Hal that he has been selected for great honor. The dying alien bestows upon him a ring and a lantern and leaves Hal with far more questions than answers.
In time, through the powers of the ring, Hal is transported to an alien world called Oa where he encounters a myriad of alien creatures and learns that he has been selected by the ring to become a member of the Green Lantern Corps. The Lanterns act as interstellar peacekeepers with each of the 3600 members assigned to a sector of space to patrol and defend. Since there’s never been a human selected, the noble and fearless Lanterns believe that the ring must have made an error in selecting an individual who is more full of bravado than real courage.
The fact that Jordan is human and replacing the revered Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), does not sit well with a powerful Lantern named Sinestro (Mark Strong), who torments and mocks Hal, literally pounding into Hal how unworthy he is. All the while, a deadly menace with the power to destroy Oa and the Green Lantern Corps named Parallax, freed from the prison he was placed in by Abin Sur, is laying waste to everything in his path including several Lanterns who seem powerless to stop him.
Jordan must also deal with Hector (Peter Sarsgaard) who, unbeknownst to Hal, has become infected by Parallax. As if his life wasn’t complicated enough, Jordan also has to address his feelings for his childhood friend Carole (Blake Lively). Hector, fueled by jealousy over Carole and Jordan’s relationship, and resentment for his for his politico father (Tim Robbins), becomes the embodiment of evil, requiring Hal battle his own doubts and shortcomings and stand alone against an enemy that is bent on destroying all life on earth.
While Lively is relegated to little more than a love interest in the film, Reynolds seizes the character and gives Jordan a vulnerability and sense of humor rather than making him all brawn and fooldhardiness. While much of the film that is devoted to the interplay between the characters and setting up the Green Lantern universe, the film has some amazing visual effects and solid action sequences that, although are presented in converted 3-D, come cross in a spectacular fashion.
While I avoid reading reviews in advance of the screener it had not escaped my attention that the film was getting severely panned by many old guard reviewers. I would question whether any of them had actually read the comic in which the film was based. Director Martin Campbell and his team of writers have crafted a solid summer action picture that not only delivers but is faithful to the source material. This is a comicbook based movie after all and whoever is looking for dynamic plots, award-winning acting, and complex and intertwined character development, will certainly miss the point. Plot and dialogue are usually kept in a simple and straightforward manner in summer action films and I believe Lantern actually goes a step beyond the usual summer offerings in this regard.
While the film is certainly resplendent with its amazing visual effects, it is, at its core, a human story about overcoming weaknesses and finding qualities we did not know we possessed. Many people are quick to lambaste films that focus solely on action and effects yet “The Green Lantern” attempts to add depth to the characters by touching on their past associations and their deep understanding of each other. While it would be impossible in a two-hour movie to go into the depth that a comicbook can, it was nice to see that some effort was made to flesh out the characters.
Yes, the film does follow a formulaic route in terms of a hero rising to the occasion and dealing with some inner turmoil and emotional conflicts which has been the staple ever since stories were first written. That being said, there is a delightful energy about the film and Reynolds’ enthusiasm for his part.
Hal avoids commitment and leads his life as a brash individual who does things his way and answers to no one.
After a close call during a training flight that puts him at odds with his employer, Hal is enveloped by a green ball of energy which transports him to a crash site where he encounters a dying alien. While unsure of what he is seeing, Hal attempts to comfort and aid the alien creature who informs Hal that he has been selected for great honor. The dying alien bestows upon him a ring and a lantern and leaves Hal with far more questions than answers.
In time, through the powers of the ring, Hal is transported to an alien world called Oa where he encounters a myriad of alien creatures and learns that he has been selected by the ring to become a member of the Green Lantern Corps. The Lanterns act as interstellar peacekeepers with each of the 3600 members assigned to a sector of space to patrol and defend. Since there’s never been a human selected, the noble and fearless Lanterns believe that the ring must have made an error in selecting an individual who is more full of bravado than real courage.
The fact that Jordan is human and replacing the revered Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), does not sit well with a powerful Lantern named Sinestro (Mark Strong), who torments and mocks Hal, literally pounding into Hal how unworthy he is. All the while, a deadly menace with the power to destroy Oa and the Green Lantern Corps named Parallax, freed from the prison he was placed in by Abin Sur, is laying waste to everything in his path including several Lanterns who seem powerless to stop him.
Jordan must also deal with Hector (Peter Sarsgaard) who, unbeknownst to Hal, has become infected by Parallax. As if his life wasn’t complicated enough, Jordan also has to address his feelings for his childhood friend Carole (Blake Lively). Hector, fueled by jealousy over Carole and Jordan’s relationship, and resentment for his for his politico father (Tim Robbins), becomes the embodiment of evil, requiring Hal battle his own doubts and shortcomings and stand alone against an enemy that is bent on destroying all life on earth.
While Lively is relegated to little more than a love interest in the film, Reynolds seizes the character and gives Jordan a vulnerability and sense of humor rather than making him all brawn and fooldhardiness. While much of the film that is devoted to the interplay between the characters and setting up the Green Lantern universe, the film has some amazing visual effects and solid action sequences that, although are presented in converted 3-D, come cross in a spectacular fashion.
While I avoid reading reviews in advance of the screener it had not escaped my attention that the film was getting severely panned by many old guard reviewers. I would question whether any of them had actually read the comic in which the film was based. Director Martin Campbell and his team of writers have crafted a solid summer action picture that not only delivers but is faithful to the source material. This is a comicbook based movie after all and whoever is looking for dynamic plots, award-winning acting, and complex and intertwined character development, will certainly miss the point. Plot and dialogue are usually kept in a simple and straightforward manner in summer action films and I believe Lantern actually goes a step beyond the usual summer offerings in this regard.
While the film is certainly resplendent with its amazing visual effects, it is, at its core, a human story about overcoming weaknesses and finding qualities we did not know we possessed. Many people are quick to lambaste films that focus solely on action and effects yet “The Green Lantern” attempts to add depth to the characters by touching on their past associations and their deep understanding of each other. While it would be impossible in a two-hour movie to go into the depth that a comicbook can, it was nice to see that some effort was made to flesh out the characters.
Yes, the film does follow a formulaic route in terms of a hero rising to the occasion and dealing with some inner turmoil and emotional conflicts which has been the staple ever since stories were first written. That being said, there is a delightful energy about the film and Reynolds’ enthusiasm for his part.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Oct 29, 2018
An all-time great performance by Anthony Perkins
I'm sure all of you have (at least) heard of the 1960 Alfred Hitchcock film, PSYCHO. And I'm sure most of you have seen (at least in part) the famous "shower scene". But when was the last time you really sat down and watched this film? It had been awhile for me and I walked away with the following impression:
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
PSYCHO is not all that scary, but it is suspenseful as heck with strong Direction by the "Master of Suspense" and very strong performances anchoring the front and back end of the film.
PSYCHO was billed when it came out as a "Janet Leigh Film". So, to give this review context, let's look at who Janet Leigh was at the time. Before shooting PSYCHO, Leigh was generally cast as the ingenue and/or love interest in mainstream fair such as LITTLE WOMEN, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and HOUDINI (a modern "comp" to her might be someone like Anne Hathaway before she started doing "edgier" work). Leigh did show that there was more to her than just being an ingenue when she played the morally ambiguous wife of Charlton Heston's character in Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. This film (probably) gave Hitchcock the idea to cast Leigh in PSYCHO.
When 1960's audiences first saw Leigh on screen in PSYCHO, I'm sure that most of them were shocked for, instead of being the pure and wholesome ingenue and wife, she plays the entire first scene in a bra and slip. Her character, Marion Crane, is not morally ambiguous, she is morally corrupt - and when Leigh's character has a chance to act on her moral corruptness, she jumps at the chance. The rest of the first half of this film is Leigh trying to get away with her "crime". She is quite good in this part of the film and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress (deservedly so).
And then...Anthony Perkins shows up.
We are about 45 minutes into the 1 hour and 49 minute film when Perkins' Norman Bates first appears on screen and an interesting thing happened - I couldn't take my eyes off of him. I was enjoying Leigh's performance but instantly pushed her aside (and to the background) when Perkins shows up. Without giving plot away, let me say that there is much, much going behind Norman's eyes and the performance by Perkins strongly suggests this, without going over-the-top or being melodramatic. It is a perfect blend of actor, character and performance and I was shocked that he was not even NOMINATED for an Oscar (Peter Ustinov would win for SPARTACUS). Perkins performance is one of the all-time greats with one of the most interesting and unusual characters - and portrayals - of all time.
Much of the credit for Perkins' and Leigh's strong performances have to go to Director Hitchcock who was at the height of his Directing powers (and power). From the "get go", you can feel the Director's hand in this film, building suspense from scene to scene and shot to shot, first with Leigh's character and, later, with Perkins. Both characters are trying to get away with something and Hitchcock pulls his camera in close to make a point - from a distance all seems good, but when you get up close, you can tell that things are very bad, indeed.
The filming of the famous "shower scene" is well documented and is a Master Class in film and editing. It is worth the price of admission on it's own - as is a scene on a staircase with Private Detective Arbogast, played by Martin Balsam. Hitchcock chooses to heighten the realism in this scene on the staircase by going a more esoteric route (rather than traditional filming of the events) and, one can argue, it doesn't belong in this film. Until, that is, you think about it and then it makes great sense and absolutely, positively has to be in this film in that way.
Another aspect of this film that begs to be mentioned is the Film Score by the great Bernard Herrmann - Hitchcock's regular collaborator. The music in this film punctuates the action on the screen - from the persistent beat and pacing of the opening credits music - driving the audience forward into the action - that does not let go, reaching it's peak and crescendo in the shower scene and then floating down gently like an animal catching it's breath after great activity.
Does the entire film hold up almost 60 years later? Almost...but not quite. Most annoying to me was the "wrap-up" scene at the end where a character spells out everything for the audience. As if we are not smart enough to "get it" - and perhaps the audiences in 1960 weren't.
But that is a quibble for a film that is a classic and is one that, if you have not seen (or seen for awhile), begs to be seen. Check out this film, not for the scares, but rather, the suspense that is generated by Hitchcock and his performers throughout. A GREAT entree into the world of Alfred Hitchcock films.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Killers of the Flower moon (2023) in Movies
Oct 27, 2023
Best Thing Scorses (and DeNiro) have done in many, many years
The BankofMarquis would highly recommend you see the latest epic (and we do mean EPIC) film from famed Director Martin Scorsese in a movie theater. Not because of the beautiful Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto, not because of the Epic-ness of the tale told and not because movie theaters could use your business (all of which are reasons to see it in the movie theaters). You need to see KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON in a movie theater so that you cannot be distracted by things around you (most, notably your PHONE). One needs to immerse themselves in the experience of this 3 1/2 movie to totally understand and appreciate it.
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The World's End (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
This summer’s movie lineup has been crammed full of sophisticated robots, vampires and even a recently passed billionaire genius. And then you have The World’s End (“TWE”), which might simply be the best and most creative of the bunch. Having a much smaller budget than these bigger movies, and being set in England, Edgar Wright shows that it’s not all about money and tropics in this hilarious romp.
I cannot honestly think of a better way to wrap up the Cornetto Trilogy then the story told in TWE. For those that don’t know there’s a joke behind the Cornetto name, in that a report brought up that a Cornetto ice cream wrapper was featured in each of the first two movies. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz make up the first two movies, and TWE rounds out what eventually became the Cornetto Trilogy. Ice cream Easter egg aside, all the films in the trilogy share the same cast and crew. They star Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, written by Pegg and Wright, and directed by Wright. The films are chock full of inside jokes that go back as far as this incredible groups humble beginnings with the TV show Spaced. Beyond these connections, though, each films stands on its own as a unique story.
While Shaun of the Dead was the group’s take on zombie films, and Hot Fuzz visited the buddy cop genre, TWE is a comedic riff on films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If you have somehow made it this far without having the full plot spoiled for you, do try and keep it that way. The key things you need to know is that there are robots, creepy “YOLO” kids, and the story centers on Gary King, a man who never quite grew up.
Gary (Pegg) is a disaster of an adult male. He’s wild, rambunctious, trying to constantly relive his youth, and irresponsible to boot. This demeanor has not done any good for him as an adult on the far side of 40, but he’s delusional and is not aware that he has not succeeded in life. This actually adds to his charm.
Gary gets a bug up his you know what, and wants to relive one of his last greatest days of his youth. A day when he and his four best friends decided to celebrate finishing school by tackling the town-famous golden mile. Newton Haven has 12 pubs spread along a mile path that Gary manages to convince his friends Steven (Paddy Considine), Oliver (Martin Freeman), Peter (Eddie Marsan) and former best friend Andrew (Frost) to attempt again just like they did all those years ago. The pub crawl concludes at the film’s namesake: The World’s End.
As the evening goes on, and the beers start going down, the five begin to discover that something is off. Between rounds and pubs, the group starts to discuss whether or not the town has changed, or they have. This leads to a fight with the creepy “YOLO” kids that is reminiscent of Chinese Kung Fu movies the likes of Jackie Chan would be found in. As the mates progress from pub to pub, more and more of the mystery of Newton Haven begins to unravel.
The film starts in a deceiving way and hides its true nature underneath a veil of middle-aged men trying to reconcile their present with their past. Gary very much represents the past as he still dresses the way he did when he was 18, still drives the same car, complete with the same cassette tape of music given to him more than 20 years ago by Steven. Gary is a loser, but thinks he is the hero of every story, which causes a love/hate relationship with the group of friends. Then it all changes! Wright and company manage to do a complete 180 and combine a very believable mid-life crisis film with a robot invasion. And it works!
Pegg absolutely nails the role of Gary, from his movements to his banter with the others in the film. There is an air of desperation hidden under his free spirit persona. But surprisingly, it is Frost that steals the movie this time around. Andrew is the most well-rounded character he has portrayed, even through his transformation from a stiff professional into the atomic elbow dropping fighter he needs to become.
As I mentioned earlier, the fight scenes are very reminiscent Chinese Kung Fu movies. The choreography is amazing and the actors have no problem keeping up with the action and bringing the air of humor that the Kung Fu films bring as well. It is impressive watching Frost, a small man by no means, nimbly dispatch several foes. Meanwhile, Pegg is constantly thwarted by enemies as he unsuccessfully attempt to enjoy a pint. For a film billed as comedy, the few fight scenes are among the best of the summer.
As good and Pegg and Frost are though, it all comes back to the man behind the camera… Wright. He has a style that is distinctive and unique. He has shown his range over the years with shows like Spaced and films like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. And his attention to detail is bar-none. Nothing is included in a shot if it doesn’t have some sort of meaning. Wright is a master film maker in his own right.
TWE is steeped in originality and creativity, which is sorely lacking in many films that are released these days. Wright is a master of deconstructing a genre film to honor it and make fun of it at the same time. Pegg and Frost have an uncanny knack for translating Wright’s visions to the silver screen. The World’s End is another example of their shining chemistry, and also one of the best films of the summer.
I cannot honestly think of a better way to wrap up the Cornetto Trilogy then the story told in TWE. For those that don’t know there’s a joke behind the Cornetto name, in that a report brought up that a Cornetto ice cream wrapper was featured in each of the first two movies. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz make up the first two movies, and TWE rounds out what eventually became the Cornetto Trilogy. Ice cream Easter egg aside, all the films in the trilogy share the same cast and crew. They star Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, written by Pegg and Wright, and directed by Wright. The films are chock full of inside jokes that go back as far as this incredible groups humble beginnings with the TV show Spaced. Beyond these connections, though, each films stands on its own as a unique story.
While Shaun of the Dead was the group’s take on zombie films, and Hot Fuzz visited the buddy cop genre, TWE is a comedic riff on films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If you have somehow made it this far without having the full plot spoiled for you, do try and keep it that way. The key things you need to know is that there are robots, creepy “YOLO” kids, and the story centers on Gary King, a man who never quite grew up.
Gary (Pegg) is a disaster of an adult male. He’s wild, rambunctious, trying to constantly relive his youth, and irresponsible to boot. This demeanor has not done any good for him as an adult on the far side of 40, but he’s delusional and is not aware that he has not succeeded in life. This actually adds to his charm.
Gary gets a bug up his you know what, and wants to relive one of his last greatest days of his youth. A day when he and his four best friends decided to celebrate finishing school by tackling the town-famous golden mile. Newton Haven has 12 pubs spread along a mile path that Gary manages to convince his friends Steven (Paddy Considine), Oliver (Martin Freeman), Peter (Eddie Marsan) and former best friend Andrew (Frost) to attempt again just like they did all those years ago. The pub crawl concludes at the film’s namesake: The World’s End.
As the evening goes on, and the beers start going down, the five begin to discover that something is off. Between rounds and pubs, the group starts to discuss whether or not the town has changed, or they have. This leads to a fight with the creepy “YOLO” kids that is reminiscent of Chinese Kung Fu movies the likes of Jackie Chan would be found in. As the mates progress from pub to pub, more and more of the mystery of Newton Haven begins to unravel.
The film starts in a deceiving way and hides its true nature underneath a veil of middle-aged men trying to reconcile their present with their past. Gary very much represents the past as he still dresses the way he did when he was 18, still drives the same car, complete with the same cassette tape of music given to him more than 20 years ago by Steven. Gary is a loser, but thinks he is the hero of every story, which causes a love/hate relationship with the group of friends. Then it all changes! Wright and company manage to do a complete 180 and combine a very believable mid-life crisis film with a robot invasion. And it works!
Pegg absolutely nails the role of Gary, from his movements to his banter with the others in the film. There is an air of desperation hidden under his free spirit persona. But surprisingly, it is Frost that steals the movie this time around. Andrew is the most well-rounded character he has portrayed, even through his transformation from a stiff professional into the atomic elbow dropping fighter he needs to become.
As I mentioned earlier, the fight scenes are very reminiscent Chinese Kung Fu movies. The choreography is amazing and the actors have no problem keeping up with the action and bringing the air of humor that the Kung Fu films bring as well. It is impressive watching Frost, a small man by no means, nimbly dispatch several foes. Meanwhile, Pegg is constantly thwarted by enemies as he unsuccessfully attempt to enjoy a pint. For a film billed as comedy, the few fight scenes are among the best of the summer.
As good and Pegg and Frost are though, it all comes back to the man behind the camera… Wright. He has a style that is distinctive and unique. He has shown his range over the years with shows like Spaced and films like Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. And his attention to detail is bar-none. Nothing is included in a shot if it doesn’t have some sort of meaning. Wright is a master film maker in his own right.
TWE is steeped in originality and creativity, which is sorely lacking in many films that are released these days. Wright is a master of deconstructing a genre film to honor it and make fun of it at the same time. Pegg and Frost have an uncanny knack for translating Wright’s visions to the silver screen. The World’s End is another example of their shining chemistry, and also one of the best films of the summer.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was going to be no easy feat. The series not only made incredible amounts of cash at the box office worldwide, but also garnered an Academy award for best picture for the final film in the series. In the years since the trilogy, writer-director-producer Peter Jackson has not overwhelmed at the box office. His big-budget remake of “King Kong” performed below expectations and the high-profile collapse of the “Halo” movie to which he was attached, as well as the underwhelming box office of “The Lovely Bones” made many people question if Jackson had peaked and was better suited for the lower budgeted independent films that first gave him his start.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
Hadley (567 KP) rated Stranger Things: Suspicious Minds in Books
Jun 10, 2019
The first novel adapted from the Netflix series hit 'Stranger Things' is an astonishing work of art. Viewers of the show may be familiar with Eleven's mother, Terry Ives, which this book surrounds. Along for the ride are a few important characters that weren't mentioned in the series: Alice, Gloria and Ken - a self proclaimed psychic - all of which meet because they signed up for a human experiment at Hawkins National Laboratory, where each are given doses of LSD every week. This quickly tells readers that the book is not recommended for anyone under the age of 14.
Although the series has more than one book, and no end in sight, Bond was only chosen to do this novel. 'Suspicious Minds' is categorized under Young Adult books, but with the heavy Vietnam content, it's not considered that many young adults today can actually relate with this story or even understand the devastating effects of a looming draft hanging over the heads of young men throughout America in the 1960's. But Bond does a wonderful job in relating the emotional state of this era through our main character, Terry. Another subject that Bond does a fantastic job of explaining in 'Suspicious Minds' is the taboo of being a pregnant, unwed mother in this era, something that seems to be making headlines again in the States nearly 60 years later.
Bond shows us a young Dr. Martin Brenner, with neatly styled brown hair and an almost unlined face, as well as a more lively Terry Ives (which only season 2 has shown a very short flashback sequence of Terry being mobile before her dreaded consequence from being associated with the human experiments). We find out that the reason Terry volunteered for the experiment is due to her father's service in WWII, and wanting to make the world a better place. Bond brings in the other important characters, who also volunteered for the experiments, quickly bonding the four as friends for life.
As far as characters go, these four are written very well. Although Terry is the main character of 'Suspicious Minds,' we get to see from the viewpoints of all people, including Brenner. Bond gives the reader a short background on what LSD is and where it came from when the time comes for the experiments to begin. Brenner doesn't really explain why he gives LSD to the volunteers, but only that it is part of a secret experiment. Even when Terry is placed in a sensory deprivation tank, he doesn't reveal anything to her, and Bond does a great job of keeping the characters enough in the grey area of knowing that it's believable. Even at one point, when Terry begins to suspect something strange from the experiments, she keeps the belief that whatever is going on at Hawkins Laboratory must be important: " 'But you can't see it's important?' Terry leaned in close, and they kept their voices down as other students walked past. 'They just called up the school and told them to give me Thursdays off and I'm getting credit for it? They're tying our grades to doing this. And no one asked any questions. They just agreed. I have to keep going.' " Bond eloquently keeps the mystery going.
This mystery is even interesting to those who know what happens in the end. In 'Stranger Things,' Terry is introduced as a comatose woman in a rocking chair- who happens to be Eleven's mother. We have never met Gloria, Alice or Ken. The three become very close to Terry, and they all somehow escape from Brenner's grasp, but they also end up joining in Terry's pursuit of getting Eleven/Jane back to her mother. Fans of the show might be left asking what happened to these three enjoyable characters? I haven't seen any plans for a part two of this story, so we may be left not knowing what happened or if the three are even still alive today (in the Stranger Things' era). Even more enjoyable is the random use of J.R.R. Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings,' where in one scene, Alice and Terry decide to name their small group 'The Fellowship of the Lab.' Any veteran reader will be happy to see a classic brought up in a newer book of today.
And also of interest, fans will recognize a little girl who is frequent throughout the story: Eight a.k.a. Kali. We never get to see through Kali's perspective, but the reader does get to see the multitude of her abilities. For instance, Kali is able to scare personnel in the lab by causing the hallucination of tidal waves inside the building, only to stop when Brenner (or Papa to her) gives her her favorite sweet: Hostess cakes. Other than that, Kali is like any child; she throws tantrums and rebels from her Papa, sometimes to the laughter of the reader.
One point, Terry even meets with Kali in her LSD induced state: " Terry shook her head. 'There can be. He's just a man. He can't know everything.' She paused. 'Does he hurt you? Papa?' Kali frowned, but she didn't answer. 'If he does... I can help you.' Terry had to make her understand. The little girl shook her head. 'I don't think so. I might be able to help you, though.' A field of yellow sunflowers grew up around them. A rainbow arcing over the golden tops." Terry, understandably, begins to scheme about how they can help Kali to escape the lab.
Bond does a great job of transitioning between Terry's point of view to the other characters' viewpoints. We get a young woman named Gloria, who has a secret obsession with comic books (especially X-Men). A hippie-looking man named Ken, who claims he is psychic, but just happens to have a lot of hunches that come true. And last, but not least, another young woman named Alice, who shows up in grease covered overalls and curly black hair, explaining that she works for her uncle's garage and that she loves machines. These three are delightful to read about, and the story would be boring without them.
This book was the perfect novel to answer questions fans may have had about Eleven's mother. Bond writes smoothly and easily enough that you may find yourself wanting to read just one more page before setting the book down for the evening. She drags you into the world of the 1960's and helps young readers to feel the emotional time that it was for women like Terry. But with only a few inconsistencies here and there, 'Suspicious Minds' leaves us wanting more. If you are a fan of 'Stranger Things,' I say that this is a must-read! Highly recommend!
Although the series has more than one book, and no end in sight, Bond was only chosen to do this novel. 'Suspicious Minds' is categorized under Young Adult books, but with the heavy Vietnam content, it's not considered that many young adults today can actually relate with this story or even understand the devastating effects of a looming draft hanging over the heads of young men throughout America in the 1960's. But Bond does a wonderful job in relating the emotional state of this era through our main character, Terry. Another subject that Bond does a fantastic job of explaining in 'Suspicious Minds' is the taboo of being a pregnant, unwed mother in this era, something that seems to be making headlines again in the States nearly 60 years later.
Bond shows us a young Dr. Martin Brenner, with neatly styled brown hair and an almost unlined face, as well as a more lively Terry Ives (which only season 2 has shown a very short flashback sequence of Terry being mobile before her dreaded consequence from being associated with the human experiments). We find out that the reason Terry volunteered for the experiment is due to her father's service in WWII, and wanting to make the world a better place. Bond brings in the other important characters, who also volunteered for the experiments, quickly bonding the four as friends for life.
As far as characters go, these four are written very well. Although Terry is the main character of 'Suspicious Minds,' we get to see from the viewpoints of all people, including Brenner. Bond gives the reader a short background on what LSD is and where it came from when the time comes for the experiments to begin. Brenner doesn't really explain why he gives LSD to the volunteers, but only that it is part of a secret experiment. Even when Terry is placed in a sensory deprivation tank, he doesn't reveal anything to her, and Bond does a great job of keeping the characters enough in the grey area of knowing that it's believable. Even at one point, when Terry begins to suspect something strange from the experiments, she keeps the belief that whatever is going on at Hawkins Laboratory must be important: " 'But you can't see it's important?' Terry leaned in close, and they kept their voices down as other students walked past. 'They just called up the school and told them to give me Thursdays off and I'm getting credit for it? They're tying our grades to doing this. And no one asked any questions. They just agreed. I have to keep going.' " Bond eloquently keeps the mystery going.
This mystery is even interesting to those who know what happens in the end. In 'Stranger Things,' Terry is introduced as a comatose woman in a rocking chair- who happens to be Eleven's mother. We have never met Gloria, Alice or Ken. The three become very close to Terry, and they all somehow escape from Brenner's grasp, but they also end up joining in Terry's pursuit of getting Eleven/Jane back to her mother. Fans of the show might be left asking what happened to these three enjoyable characters? I haven't seen any plans for a part two of this story, so we may be left not knowing what happened or if the three are even still alive today (in the Stranger Things' era). Even more enjoyable is the random use of J.R.R. Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings,' where in one scene, Alice and Terry decide to name their small group 'The Fellowship of the Lab.' Any veteran reader will be happy to see a classic brought up in a newer book of today.
And also of interest, fans will recognize a little girl who is frequent throughout the story: Eight a.k.a. Kali. We never get to see through Kali's perspective, but the reader does get to see the multitude of her abilities. For instance, Kali is able to scare personnel in the lab by causing the hallucination of tidal waves inside the building, only to stop when Brenner (or Papa to her) gives her her favorite sweet: Hostess cakes. Other than that, Kali is like any child; she throws tantrums and rebels from her Papa, sometimes to the laughter of the reader.
One point, Terry even meets with Kali in her LSD induced state: " Terry shook her head. 'There can be. He's just a man. He can't know everything.' She paused. 'Does he hurt you? Papa?' Kali frowned, but she didn't answer. 'If he does... I can help you.' Terry had to make her understand. The little girl shook her head. 'I don't think so. I might be able to help you, though.' A field of yellow sunflowers grew up around them. A rainbow arcing over the golden tops." Terry, understandably, begins to scheme about how they can help Kali to escape the lab.
Bond does a great job of transitioning between Terry's point of view to the other characters' viewpoints. We get a young woman named Gloria, who has a secret obsession with comic books (especially X-Men). A hippie-looking man named Ken, who claims he is psychic, but just happens to have a lot of hunches that come true. And last, but not least, another young woman named Alice, who shows up in grease covered overalls and curly black hair, explaining that she works for her uncle's garage and that she loves machines. These three are delightful to read about, and the story would be boring without them.
This book was the perfect novel to answer questions fans may have had about Eleven's mother. Bond writes smoothly and easily enough that you may find yourself wanting to read just one more page before setting the book down for the evening. She drags you into the world of the 1960's and helps young readers to feel the emotional time that it was for women like Terry. But with only a few inconsistencies here and there, 'Suspicious Minds' leaves us wanting more. If you are a fan of 'Stranger Things,' I say that this is a must-read! Highly recommend!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
How many times have you seen this premise played out in film or other forms of entertainment: The world is going to end and there’s one last ditch plan or effort to save it (It inevitably succeeds, of course!); alternatively, the world has ended already and we’re left with post-apocalyptic society picking up the pieces. The premise is everywhere; the fascination with the end of days has been evident throughout our popular culture for decades. Yet, the thing about these two premises is that it avoids a (quite large) important question about the nature of the situation. What if our last ditch effort doesn’t succeed? What if there is no post-apocalyptic setting giving us hope for a re-built future. “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World”, a brand new film directed and written by Lorene Scafaria (“Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist”) attempts to focus on that gap often glossed over by apocalyptic fiction. It assumes there is no hope, there is a conclusion, and how do we deal with that?
It’s a comedy drama that pokes fun of the absurdity of a monotonous society coping with the conclusion of all civilization, while interweaving a touching romance between two people with broken pasts and deep regrets. Yet, it is a movie with some notable flaws, mainly in how it focuses its attention.
The premise is fairly simple, and rightly so. There is a large asteroid named “Matilda” barreling towards Earth and its impact will wipe out all life on our beloved planet. The film starts with the announcement that the last chance for Earth’s survival, a space mission to destroy the asteroid, has failed due to a fire on board the vessel. With only three weeks left to live, insurance salesman Dodge Peterson (Steve Carell) must decide how to spend the rest of his life. He decides to chase down an old highschool sweetheart and is accompanied by his neighbor, Penny (Keira Knightley) who wishes to return home to see her family one last time. They meet several characters in their roadtrip journey through pre-apocalyptica, including characters played by Rob Corddry and Martin Sheen.
The simple premise seems familiar due to its subject matter (C’mon, it’s 2012. I’m surprised there hasn’t been even more apocalypse movies flooding the theaters). Yet, strangely it feels fresh simply in how it handles itself. As said, most movies focus on the last daring mission to save mankind from certain destruction, or assumes that certain destruction really isn’t the end. People like to see hope, they don’t want to be confined by fate. This movie takes a different approach. Right off the bat it basically tells you there is zero hope, zero chance of getting out of this mess. Now what do you do? This particular premise lets comedy shine for the first two acts of the movie. There are subtle jokes, like the absurdity of naming a rock about to destroy all of mankind “Matilda”.
There are more traditional joke set-ups, favoring quick joke-punchline material that is mostly laugh-out-loud funny. And there is a fair amount of dark humor, simple funniness in the absurdity of how people treat the end of days. People mowing their lawns, still cleaning houses, even cops who continue to pull people over all poke fun of how people cannot let go of even the most monotonous of tasks that define their lift – regardless of how pointless they are due to the situation. Or the people who just let go and want to spend their last days without care, throwing themselves into orgies, drugs or riots. However, the tone of the drama limits the humor of the movie, favoring those kinds of moderate laughs over hysterical or hilarious moments. That’s the underlying issue of the film: that it feels like the humor is constrained due to fear of it undermining its drama.
Those who expect a comedy movie will only get two-thirds of one. And those who expect a drama movie will get mostly one. By no means does it fail at comedy or drama, but it just does not strike that delicate balance to be both in the same setting. The last act of the movie almost completely drops the comedy in favor of a dramatic and romantic conclusion. It’s not a huge fault, because the writing, and well-paced relationship development between the two main protagonists (Dodge and Penny), means that their inevitable romance seems natural, honest, and believable. The comedy is really only around in the first two thirds of the movie to try and keep your attention away from the obvious conclusion to their story – the fact that they end up together (and, perhaps, another conclusion entirely). So, when it does eventually happen, even though it was obvious from the start that it would, it does feel very endearing. The natural chemistry between Steve Carell and Keira Knightley is quite good, so buying their romance is not difficult in the slightest.
Yet, even still, that underlying issue keeps coming back. The fact that the comedy feels like a tool to facilitate a good dramatic ending ,instead of natural focus of the movie, undermines the experience for those who want to get some laughs. If there was a more natural balance between the romantic elements and comedy elements throughout the whole movie and not just the first two thirds, it could bring forth much more powerful comedy and/or drama. That way those who desire comedy or romance would be delighted to get a good deal of both intertwined.
I commend the film for how it handles the subject matter of inevitability. Even though it pokes fun at absurdity and really garners good laughs, it always has this underlying sense of regret, sadness and dread. You’re always reminded in the back of your mind that the world is going to end, but it does a good enough job pulling you into the characters’ last struggle to piece together their lives after decades of failure and regret that you end up really wanting to see them pull through somehow. Its last act is especially poignant, and definitely emotionally strong. Even though the themes of throwing away your past in favor of a happier future (despite it being such a short future) are not well concealed, they still end up being particularly strong. A film that can really make you appreciate what you have outside the film and the limited time you have left to enjoy it has to be commended for making you think.
“Seeking a Friend for the End of the World” is a fairly powerful romance drama that focuses on how people deal with loss, regret and the prospect of inevitable fate. More importantly, though, is that it focuses on how people can build something profoundly beautiful even in the last moments of their lives – regardless of their pasts or (lack) of future prospects. It has comedy in the movie, but it never really shines nor intertwines with the drama. They almost feel like two separate elements that struggle to mix together. Yet, the comedy is mostly laugh-out-loud funny and the drama is quite poignant and endearing. It definitely had the potential to make us laugh to tears or even bring us to tears through drama, but instead it settles for simply making us laugh and reflect.
It’s a comedy drama that pokes fun of the absurdity of a monotonous society coping with the conclusion of all civilization, while interweaving a touching romance between two people with broken pasts and deep regrets. Yet, it is a movie with some notable flaws, mainly in how it focuses its attention.
The premise is fairly simple, and rightly so. There is a large asteroid named “Matilda” barreling towards Earth and its impact will wipe out all life on our beloved planet. The film starts with the announcement that the last chance for Earth’s survival, a space mission to destroy the asteroid, has failed due to a fire on board the vessel. With only three weeks left to live, insurance salesman Dodge Peterson (Steve Carell) must decide how to spend the rest of his life. He decides to chase down an old highschool sweetheart and is accompanied by his neighbor, Penny (Keira Knightley) who wishes to return home to see her family one last time. They meet several characters in their roadtrip journey through pre-apocalyptica, including characters played by Rob Corddry and Martin Sheen.
The simple premise seems familiar due to its subject matter (C’mon, it’s 2012. I’m surprised there hasn’t been even more apocalypse movies flooding the theaters). Yet, strangely it feels fresh simply in how it handles itself. As said, most movies focus on the last daring mission to save mankind from certain destruction, or assumes that certain destruction really isn’t the end. People like to see hope, they don’t want to be confined by fate. This movie takes a different approach. Right off the bat it basically tells you there is zero hope, zero chance of getting out of this mess. Now what do you do? This particular premise lets comedy shine for the first two acts of the movie. There are subtle jokes, like the absurdity of naming a rock about to destroy all of mankind “Matilda”.
There are more traditional joke set-ups, favoring quick joke-punchline material that is mostly laugh-out-loud funny. And there is a fair amount of dark humor, simple funniness in the absurdity of how people treat the end of days. People mowing their lawns, still cleaning houses, even cops who continue to pull people over all poke fun of how people cannot let go of even the most monotonous of tasks that define their lift – regardless of how pointless they are due to the situation. Or the people who just let go and want to spend their last days without care, throwing themselves into orgies, drugs or riots. However, the tone of the drama limits the humor of the movie, favoring those kinds of moderate laughs over hysterical or hilarious moments. That’s the underlying issue of the film: that it feels like the humor is constrained due to fear of it undermining its drama.
Those who expect a comedy movie will only get two-thirds of one. And those who expect a drama movie will get mostly one. By no means does it fail at comedy or drama, but it just does not strike that delicate balance to be both in the same setting. The last act of the movie almost completely drops the comedy in favor of a dramatic and romantic conclusion. It’s not a huge fault, because the writing, and well-paced relationship development between the two main protagonists (Dodge and Penny), means that their inevitable romance seems natural, honest, and believable. The comedy is really only around in the first two thirds of the movie to try and keep your attention away from the obvious conclusion to their story – the fact that they end up together (and, perhaps, another conclusion entirely). So, when it does eventually happen, even though it was obvious from the start that it would, it does feel very endearing. The natural chemistry between Steve Carell and Keira Knightley is quite good, so buying their romance is not difficult in the slightest.
Yet, even still, that underlying issue keeps coming back. The fact that the comedy feels like a tool to facilitate a good dramatic ending ,instead of natural focus of the movie, undermines the experience for those who want to get some laughs. If there was a more natural balance between the romantic elements and comedy elements throughout the whole movie and not just the first two thirds, it could bring forth much more powerful comedy and/or drama. That way those who desire comedy or romance would be delighted to get a good deal of both intertwined.
I commend the film for how it handles the subject matter of inevitability. Even though it pokes fun at absurdity and really garners good laughs, it always has this underlying sense of regret, sadness and dread. You’re always reminded in the back of your mind that the world is going to end, but it does a good enough job pulling you into the characters’ last struggle to piece together their lives after decades of failure and regret that you end up really wanting to see them pull through somehow. Its last act is especially poignant, and definitely emotionally strong. Even though the themes of throwing away your past in favor of a happier future (despite it being such a short future) are not well concealed, they still end up being particularly strong. A film that can really make you appreciate what you have outside the film and the limited time you have left to enjoy it has to be commended for making you think.
“Seeking a Friend for the End of the World” is a fairly powerful romance drama that focuses on how people deal with loss, regret and the prospect of inevitable fate. More importantly, though, is that it focuses on how people can build something profoundly beautiful even in the last moments of their lives – regardless of their pasts or (lack) of future prospects. It has comedy in the movie, but it never really shines nor intertwines with the drama. They almost feel like two separate elements that struggle to mix together. Yet, the comedy is mostly laugh-out-loud funny and the drama is quite poignant and endearing. It definitely had the potential to make us laugh to tears or even bring us to tears through drama, but instead it settles for simply making us laugh and reflect.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Well written (1 more)
Good direction
Mr Hinx (1 more)
Not enough Cristoph Waltz
As good as the last?
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Casino Royale released in 2006, it was to be a soft reboot of the franchise that showed viewers the events of Bond’s first mission and it strived to rectify some of the silly gadgets etc that were being over-used with Brosnan’s Bond. In my opinion, Casino Royale was a great film, it just wasn’t a Bond film. It done away with all of the silly gimmicks and cheesy one liners and was an introduction to a more grounded version of the iconic character, which made for a great spy thriller but not a great Bond movie. Then Quantum of Solace came out and literally nobody cared, not many people went to see it, it didn’t make much money at the box office and to this day I’ve still not seen that whole movie from start to finish and to be honest, I’m perfectly okay with that. Skyfall was the third Craig Bond movie to be released and it was a triumph. Finally Craig felt like he was actually playing Bond and not just some random hard ass military spy. It even flirted with the idea of gadgets, had a flamboyant supervillain and introduced a young, fresh faced Q, which was a nice touch. The movie ended with Silva killing Judi Dench’s M and Bond killing Silva, Ralph Fiennes was then appointed with the title of M and Naomi Harris was revealed to be the new Moneypenny. So with the last movie pleasing both long time Bond fans and newcomers alike, SPECTRE had a lot to live up to.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.