Search
Search results
David McK (3180 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 16, 2019 (Updated Apr 24, 2023)
OK, I'll admit it: I have a soft spot for the 1998 Matthew Broderick version.
This has nothing to do with it, but is (rather) a continuation of 2014's Godzilla movie that 'kicked off' what I'm going to call the Monster-verse, which now consists of 3 movies: 2014s "Godzilla", 2017s actually-quite-enjoyable "Kong: Skull Island", and now this.
The connecting tissue? The organisation known as Monarch, which has secretly being studying the Titans (as they are called here) ever since the events of that movie (set during the Vietnam War, remember). Kong is mentioned a few times, and appears on a TV screen in the background, but is not a character in this film.
What anybody really wants out of a movie like this, of course, is to see the monsters fighting each other whole destroying all around, and - in that respect, at least, this movie does not disappoint. It's just a pity that the human element doesn't really connect, with some clumsy eco-message exposition, although it does have some nice-looking vignettes when viewed in isolation (King Ghidorah on top of a mountain, with a cross in the foreground, for example).
This has nothing to do with it, but is (rather) a continuation of 2014's Godzilla movie that 'kicked off' what I'm going to call the Monster-verse, which now consists of 3 movies: 2014s "Godzilla", 2017s actually-quite-enjoyable "Kong: Skull Island", and now this.
The connecting tissue? The organisation known as Monarch, which has secretly being studying the Titans (as they are called here) ever since the events of that movie (set during the Vietnam War, remember). Kong is mentioned a few times, and appears on a TV screen in the background, but is not a character in this film.
What anybody really wants out of a movie like this, of course, is to see the monsters fighting each other whole destroying all around, and - in that respect, at least, this movie does not disappoint. It's just a pity that the human element doesn't really connect, with some clumsy eco-message exposition, although it does have some nice-looking vignettes when viewed in isolation (King Ghidorah on top of a mountain, with a cross in the foreground, for example).
Brecoles Nine (16 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Mar 12, 2019
Godzilla (2014) Review
Contains spoilers, click to show
Godzilla (2014) was a really good movie, it had a lot action and a lot suspense. However it didn't really contain too many scenes with Godzilla, it had a lot of facial expressions from Aaron Taylor Johnson, and by a lot I mean the same expression. ? <- That one.
The whole movie, I believe was definitely a set up for Godzilla: King of the Monsters due out in 2019, though it could have used a little bit more "monster" in it. I liked it though, but it's missing some key elements to make it Godzilla, but once you get passed the obvious problems with it, it proves to be a really great film. The roar they created for this new take on Godzilla is by far my favorite aside from the 1999 Toho film. America has finally done Godzilla justice however, especially compared to the Matthew Broderick starring Godzilla in the early 2000's whom is now labeled as simply "Zilla." Great film to watch, get caught up before Godzilla: King of the Monsters hits theaters on May 31, 2019.
The whole movie, I believe was definitely a set up for Godzilla: King of the Monsters due out in 2019, though it could have used a little bit more "monster" in it. I liked it though, but it's missing some key elements to make it Godzilla, but once you get passed the obvious problems with it, it proves to be a really great film. The roar they created for this new take on Godzilla is by far my favorite aside from the 1999 Toho film. America has finally done Godzilla justice however, especially compared to the Matthew Broderick starring Godzilla in the early 2000's whom is now labeled as simply "Zilla." Great film to watch, get caught up before Godzilla: King of the Monsters hits theaters on May 31, 2019.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Tower Heist (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In the movie Tower Heist, the employees of The Tower, a ritzy high-rise condominium in New York City, fall victim to a Ponzi scheme and lose their 401(k). Now normally there wouldn’t be anything they could do about it but Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), the one behind the Ponzi scheme, is one of the residents at The Tower.
Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller), former general anager of The Tower, has an idea to steal the defrauded employees’ money back, but he needs help with his grand scheme. Josh brings in his brother-in-law Cole Howard (Casey Affleck) and Rick Malloy (Michael Pena). Both are former employees and as such have a score to settle. Josh also enlists the help of Odessa Montero (Gabourey Sidibe) who is currently a maid at the Tower and Chase Fitzhugh (Matthew Broderick), a former resident.
While eager to do what they believe is right, the group does not have a background in crime, so Josh brings in Slide (Eddie Murphy), a thief from his neighborhood that he has known since childhood. Will this band of merry men and woman be successful and save the day Robin Hood-style or will they run afoul of FBI Agent Claire Denham (Tea Leoni)?
The film has a very entertaining story that unfolds beautifully and a better cast would be impossible to find. Now with that said, there were some parts in the movie that were distracting to me because I could not suspend my disbelief that far, however, I can’t say what they are due to the fact that I do not want to spoil any scenes for you.
Eddie Murphy did an amazing job of keeping his character realistic and at the same time unbelievably funny. Without a doubt every scene Murphy is in is golden. Not only did Alan Alda’s character get arrested for stealing people’s money but he almost stole the show. And even though every fiber of my being wanted to dislike his character, who is an arrogant, self-righteous, demeaning jerk; Alda portrayed him in such a way that I was actually sort of hoping that the character would get away with it. Now I know all you Benheads out there are asking “What about Ben Stiller?” You all will be happy to know that he was great, he was definitely the humorous glue that held the movie together. Matthew Broderick, Michael Pena and Casey Affleck were all very entertaining though at times Casey gets drowned out by the others. Last but certainly not least Gabourey Sidibe and Tea Leoni were both great and incredibly funny however they did not get anywhere near as much screen time as I would have liked.
Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller), former general anager of The Tower, has an idea to steal the defrauded employees’ money back, but he needs help with his grand scheme. Josh brings in his brother-in-law Cole Howard (Casey Affleck) and Rick Malloy (Michael Pena). Both are former employees and as such have a score to settle. Josh also enlists the help of Odessa Montero (Gabourey Sidibe) who is currently a maid at the Tower and Chase Fitzhugh (Matthew Broderick), a former resident.
While eager to do what they believe is right, the group does not have a background in crime, so Josh brings in Slide (Eddie Murphy), a thief from his neighborhood that he has known since childhood. Will this band of merry men and woman be successful and save the day Robin Hood-style or will they run afoul of FBI Agent Claire Denham (Tea Leoni)?
The film has a very entertaining story that unfolds beautifully and a better cast would be impossible to find. Now with that said, there were some parts in the movie that were distracting to me because I could not suspend my disbelief that far, however, I can’t say what they are due to the fact that I do not want to spoil any scenes for you.
Eddie Murphy did an amazing job of keeping his character realistic and at the same time unbelievably funny. Without a doubt every scene Murphy is in is golden. Not only did Alan Alda’s character get arrested for stealing people’s money but he almost stole the show. And even though every fiber of my being wanted to dislike his character, who is an arrogant, self-righteous, demeaning jerk; Alda portrayed him in such a way that I was actually sort of hoping that the character would get away with it. Now I know all you Benheads out there are asking “What about Ben Stiller?” You all will be happy to know that he was great, he was definitely the humorous glue that held the movie together. Matthew Broderick, Michael Pena and Casey Affleck were all very entertaining though at times Casey gets drowned out by the others. Last but certainly not least Gabourey Sidibe and Tea Leoni were both great and incredibly funny however they did not get anywhere near as much screen time as I would have liked.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Tower Heist (2011) in Movies
May 30, 2018
This seems like the perfect recipe for a film.
Contains spoilers, click to show
This seems like the perfect recipe for a film. Take a few comedy greats, some Academy Award nominated actors and a great director and you have the makings of a classic comedy film. However something went wrong. That's not to say this film isn't good it is, but it isn't close to what it could have been.
The film is about a robbery in a very secure building with the latest security and the best staff that money can buy. The staff have invested their own personal savings and their pension fund with one of the tenants, a financier Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda). However he is arrested for fraud and they find out that he has lost all their money.
The cast including Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Matthew Broderick, Casey Affleck, Téa Leoni, and Juan Carlos Hernández is good. They work well together and they all have great moments. Gabourey Sidibe steals every moment she is on screen and she could have a great future in comedy.
This film should have been great. It was originally going to be in the style of Ocean's 11 but somewhere along the way it changed into this. You have comedy greats Eddie Murphy, Ben Stiller and Ferris Buller. I say Ferris Buller because it feels like Matthew Broderick is playing that character after he has lost everything. The film felt like it should have been full of big comedy moments, but I couldn't find them. There are some very funny scenes but not many. As for the hi-tech building security mentioned a few times in the film, it doesn't materialise, all you are shown are a few cameras that are quickly disabled with a smiley face sticker! I was really looking forward to this, mainly in the hope that Eddie Murphy would give a performance worthy of his comedy legacy. I loved his films from the 80's. His films of the 90's were hit or miss until his performance in Bowfinger, one of his best performances. Apart from his role in the Shrek films there was nothing great about any of his roles since then. So what would he be like in this? Fortunately he is good. Not as great as the Eddie Murphy back in his reckless care free roles, but better than 90% of the last two decades of his films. The reason he is so good in Bowfinger is what makes this role work. It is because he isn't in the lead role. Take the pressure away from having to carry the whole film and he shines.
I was disappointed with the lack of great comedy moments and the lack of risk for the characters, but it is a good film, just don't watch this expecting a comedy classic as you will be disappointed.
The film is about a robbery in a very secure building with the latest security and the best staff that money can buy. The staff have invested their own personal savings and their pension fund with one of the tenants, a financier Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda). However he is arrested for fraud and they find out that he has lost all their money.
The cast including Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Matthew Broderick, Casey Affleck, Téa Leoni, and Juan Carlos Hernández is good. They work well together and they all have great moments. Gabourey Sidibe steals every moment she is on screen and she could have a great future in comedy.
This film should have been great. It was originally going to be in the style of Ocean's 11 but somewhere along the way it changed into this. You have comedy greats Eddie Murphy, Ben Stiller and Ferris Buller. I say Ferris Buller because it feels like Matthew Broderick is playing that character after he has lost everything. The film felt like it should have been full of big comedy moments, but I couldn't find them. There are some very funny scenes but not many. As for the hi-tech building security mentioned a few times in the film, it doesn't materialise, all you are shown are a few cameras that are quickly disabled with a smiley face sticker! I was really looking forward to this, mainly in the hope that Eddie Murphy would give a performance worthy of his comedy legacy. I loved his films from the 80's. His films of the 90's were hit or miss until his performance in Bowfinger, one of his best performances. Apart from his role in the Shrek films there was nothing great about any of his roles since then. So what would he be like in this? Fortunately he is good. Not as great as the Eddie Murphy back in his reckless care free roles, but better than 90% of the last two decades of his films. The reason he is so good in Bowfinger is what makes this role work. It is because he isn't in the lead role. Take the pressure away from having to carry the whole film and he shines.
I was disappointed with the lack of great comedy moments and the lack of risk for the characters, but it is a good film, just don't watch this expecting a comedy classic as you will be disappointed.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Glory (1989) in Movies
Apr 14, 2020
Well acted with tense battle scenes
Every now and then, I'll watch a specific scene in a movie and when it is complete, I say to myself - "that person just won the Oscar." Such was the case for a young "up and coming' actor in the 1989 Civil War film GLORY.
Directed by Richard Zwick (LEGENDS OF THE FALL) Glory tells the true story of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry of the Union Army in the Civil War - the first all black infantry - and stars Mathew Broderick (FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF), Cary Elwes (THE PRINCESS BRIDE), Morgan Freeman (on his way to becoming well known), Andre Braugher (in one of his first screen appearances) and Denzel Washington (who won an Oscar for his work).
Zwick does a wonderful job putting a unique spin on a standard story - ragtag group of soldiers band together, they go through bootcamp together and shift from a disparate group of individuals to a solid team - and then prove their worth in battle. This could have easily been a "paint by numbers" film but Zwick makes it something more, putting the emphasis on the soldiers and the obstacles they need to overcome and downplaying the danger and the violence. Don't get me wrong - the action sequences are intense and well made, they just aren't the point of the film.
The point of the film are the men who are involved - and the 5 leads are tremendous. Morgan Freeman shows the grace and leadership and authority that he would bring to many, many pictures. Elwes shows that he can command a screen, if given a chance and Denzel sparkles in his scenes. This picture shows a true movie star being born. But the real surprises for me on this viewing is the work of Matthew Broderick, playing a very different character than the light comedy performances we had seen from him in films like FERRIS BUELLER and on the stage that we would come to know him as in such musicals as THE PRODUCERS. This film shows that he has some wonderful acting chops and is just at home with a dramatic role as he is with a light comedic role.
But...the actor that really stood out from the others in this showing is the great Andre Braugher in his first Major Motion Picture appearance. He would go on to shine brightly in such roles as Detective Pembleton in HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREETS and currently is starring as Captain Holt in BROOKLYN 99, but in Glory he was an unknown commodity and his portrayal of free, educated black man Thomas Searles - a childhood friend of both the Broderick and Elwes characters - who must adjust to being one of "the men" with this collection of uneducated former slaves and live in a tiered relationship with 2 men that are his peers and friends is heartbreaking to watch. Even though I was thrilled with Washington's Oscar (he does have the "Oscar scene" in this film), I thought Braugher's performance was just as good - maybe even better.
All of this leads the audience to a finale that is intense - and intensely personal - for you are invested in these men as they face insurmountable odds and most certain death.
I've been re-watching quite a few movies lately, and GLORY is one that hit me harder - and is better - than I remembered. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Richard Zwick (LEGENDS OF THE FALL) Glory tells the true story of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry of the Union Army in the Civil War - the first all black infantry - and stars Mathew Broderick (FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF), Cary Elwes (THE PRINCESS BRIDE), Morgan Freeman (on his way to becoming well known), Andre Braugher (in one of his first screen appearances) and Denzel Washington (who won an Oscar for his work).
Zwick does a wonderful job putting a unique spin on a standard story - ragtag group of soldiers band together, they go through bootcamp together and shift from a disparate group of individuals to a solid team - and then prove their worth in battle. This could have easily been a "paint by numbers" film but Zwick makes it something more, putting the emphasis on the soldiers and the obstacles they need to overcome and downplaying the danger and the violence. Don't get me wrong - the action sequences are intense and well made, they just aren't the point of the film.
The point of the film are the men who are involved - and the 5 leads are tremendous. Morgan Freeman shows the grace and leadership and authority that he would bring to many, many pictures. Elwes shows that he can command a screen, if given a chance and Denzel sparkles in his scenes. This picture shows a true movie star being born. But the real surprises for me on this viewing is the work of Matthew Broderick, playing a very different character than the light comedy performances we had seen from him in films like FERRIS BUELLER and on the stage that we would come to know him as in such musicals as THE PRODUCERS. This film shows that he has some wonderful acting chops and is just at home with a dramatic role as he is with a light comedic role.
But...the actor that really stood out from the others in this showing is the great Andre Braugher in his first Major Motion Picture appearance. He would go on to shine brightly in such roles as Detective Pembleton in HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREETS and currently is starring as Captain Holt in BROOKLYN 99, but in Glory he was an unknown commodity and his portrayal of free, educated black man Thomas Searles - a childhood friend of both the Broderick and Elwes characters - who must adjust to being one of "the men" with this collection of uneducated former slaves and live in a tiered relationship with 2 men that are his peers and friends is heartbreaking to watch. Even though I was thrilled with Washington's Oscar (he does have the "Oscar scene" in this film), I thought Braugher's performance was just as good - maybe even better.
All of this leads the audience to a finale that is intense - and intensely personal - for you are invested in these men as they face insurmountable odds and most certain death.
I've been re-watching quite a few movies lately, and GLORY is one that hit me harder - and is better - than I remembered. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Fred (860 KP) rated The Producers (2005) in Movies
May 27, 2019
If I had never seen the original, this may have been decent
No question that the original 1968 film is one of the greatest comedies of all time. Anyone who's seen the original is going to have a hard time not comparing this film to the original. As soon as this movie started, I knew I was in trouble. Let's just say that Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick don't even come close to Zero Mostel & Gene Wilder. But it doesn't stop there. There is nobody in this film that is better than anyone in the original film. I realize they needed people that could not only act, but sing & in some cases, dance. But one cannot look at the first 10 minutes of the film & think, "Those are the worst impressions of Mostel & Wilder I've ever seen." Broderick is the hardest to look at. He just doesn't come off as natural when he becomes hysterical or when he's explaining things to Bialystock. Nathan Lane fares better, but somehow the jokes come out very stale & unfunny.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated WarGames The Dead Code (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It is hard to believe that 25 years have passed since a computer took the world to the edge of nuclear annihilation in “War Games” The film starring Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy was a cautionary tale about the dangers of taking the human factor about military decisions, and like films such as “The Terminator” a cautionary warning about dependence on technology.
As the two and a half decades unfolded, many films have emerged that feature a central theme of technology run amuck, and how despite our frailties, humanity in the end is the ultimate master of its own fate.
In the new film “Wargames: The Dead Code”, audiences are given an updated retelling of the classic tale with more than a few reverent nods to the original.
The film stars Matt Lanter as Will Farmer, a good natured techie who is as eager to help his neighbor fix his computer as he is to play online games with his friend Dennis (Nicholas Wright). When Will decides to take on a new game that features terrorist attack scenarios he inadvertently triggers a series of events that will soon cause hundreds of thousands of lives to hang in the balance.
The game is actually a top secret project that is designed to locate, test, and remove any potential threats and is overseen by a computer system named Ripley.
Will embarks on a school trip to Montreal hoping to spend more time with the lovely Annie (Amanda Walsh), and is unaware that forces are at play that thanks to a unfortunate series of events, will soon have Amanda and Will not only running for their lives but locked in a race against time to prevent a catastrophe of epic proportion.
The film has a good premise, but asks you to take several leaps of faith as it progresses and uses logic that at times is absurd even for a genre film. Much of the film unfolds as a movie of the week rather than a taut action thriller that should be expected with the talent attached to the film, as many of the characters are not developed enough for the audience to truly care about their fates.
The film is also surprisingly short in the suspense department, though it does try to make up for this with some nice chase sequences.
It is a shame that the talented cast could not be given a script worth of their talents or the premise of the film.
As the two and a half decades unfolded, many films have emerged that feature a central theme of technology run amuck, and how despite our frailties, humanity in the end is the ultimate master of its own fate.
In the new film “Wargames: The Dead Code”, audiences are given an updated retelling of the classic tale with more than a few reverent nods to the original.
The film stars Matt Lanter as Will Farmer, a good natured techie who is as eager to help his neighbor fix his computer as he is to play online games with his friend Dennis (Nicholas Wright). When Will decides to take on a new game that features terrorist attack scenarios he inadvertently triggers a series of events that will soon cause hundreds of thousands of lives to hang in the balance.
The game is actually a top secret project that is designed to locate, test, and remove any potential threats and is overseen by a computer system named Ripley.
Will embarks on a school trip to Montreal hoping to spend more time with the lovely Annie (Amanda Walsh), and is unaware that forces are at play that thanks to a unfortunate series of events, will soon have Amanda and Will not only running for their lives but locked in a race against time to prevent a catastrophe of epic proportion.
The film has a good premise, but asks you to take several leaps of faith as it progresses and uses logic that at times is absurd even for a genre film. Much of the film unfolds as a movie of the week rather than a taut action thriller that should be expected with the talent attached to the film, as many of the characters are not developed enough for the audience to truly care about their fates.
The film is also surprisingly short in the suspense department, though it does try to make up for this with some nice chase sequences.
It is a shame that the talented cast could not be given a script worth of their talents or the premise of the film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Manchester by the Sea (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow! I’d heard all about the Oscar hype surrounding this film but to be honest, while I thought I would be seeing a solid and well-made indie film, I went into it without great expectations of having an ‘enjoyable’ time: the trailer had “angst” written all over it. And – sure – it is emotional and harrowing in places. However, I was completely knocked out by the depth, the intelligence and the humour of this masterpiece.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Five years after Godzilla saved us from the MUTO attack the world (or some of it at least) wants to see an end to the potential threat of the Titans. Monarch are studying them and hiding them away from the world, but there are calls to destroy the monsters before more devastation befalls the planet?
Dr Emma Russell has developed the Orca, a device that communicates with the Titans and can be used to calm them and stop any further destruction. Not everyone has the same idea about how to use the Orca though and it's taken, along with Dr Russell and her daughter Madison, after its successful test run. The race is on to recover the device and avert the impending crisis.
Godzilla is one of my favourite monsters. For years the 1998 film with Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno in it was one of my favourite films. I also love the "proper" Godzilla movies where they destroy Tokyo at every given opportunity. To have new films felt like a wonderful thing... until I saw 2014 Godzilla. I rewatched it before going to see King Of The Monsters and I remembered how underwhelmed I was. The characters didn't grab me and I found the whole thing uninspiring. The prospect of a second wasn't great, but then I saw the trailers, they were spectacular.
I really enjoyed this and went to see it again in 3D, a much more peaceful screening than the first viewing. The girl who was sitting a couple of seats away was animatedly jumping at every opportunity, her reaction was far scarier than anything that happened on the screen.
This was much improved on the last instalment. I loved that it embraced the original films and the fact that it switched its focus more to the monsters than the humans. You go to a monster movie to see monsters, and Godzilla 2014 felt like it had forgotten that fact.
If I had to describe this film to someone I'd say it was a combination of Infinity War and Jurassic Park, just with slightly larger monsters... yep, I'm fairly happy with that comparison. I may have been imagining it but I felt like there were a few nods to JP jumbled in there... maybe that's just me.
There's a collection of recognisable faces in the cast and I don't think there's a single person who underperforms. I thought that Millie Bobby Brown gave a great performance as Madison, she managed to give us a child character that wasn't particularly annoying, which may actually be a first in creature features.
Charles Dance makes an excellent bad guy, there's something about his look, a cross between a vampire and the restaurant critic from Ratatouille that works for me. He also gets to have a great moment of silent humour with Brown when they're in a lift together, it was very unexpected for their potential on-screen relationship.
We get to see four of our Titans in this movie as main players. Godzilla, obvs, Mothra, Rodan and Monster Zero, or King Ghidorah to his friends. The sheer scale they've gone to is amazing, and I thought the way they were created with their individual traits was beautiful. The one drawback to the beautiful glowing monster bodies is that the scenes have to be fairly dark to appreciate that aspect. They manage to use those aspects of the creatures to give the extra lighting the scenes need meaning that you get something that's both dark and scary as well as light and hopeful. The colours were something that really stood out to me in the advertising, the lightness of the blue and green against the anger of the orange and yellow, it shows the good and evil relationship really well.
The size of the creatures is mad and sometimes a little impossible to gauge, we get a few moments where we're given some perspective with man-made structures but they do a good job of trying to get it across in basic visual techniques too. You see a lot of them from "human" angles, from the ground running, from buildings and vehicles. It feels like an exercise in shock and awe and takes you back to Dr Serizawa's point at the beginning of the film that we're Godzilla's pets, it's not the other way around.
The effects/animation looked solid, at no point did I see anything on-screen that drew my attention away from the action. One moment in particular stood out and that was a large explosion somewhere in the middle of the movie. It was given an old fashioned kind of a look and it gave me the impression that they'd really looked at things that had come before it for inspiration.
You have to obviously accept the facts that in these sorts of films, parents will willingly put their children in immense danger, bad guys will always have prepared a short video presentation to explain their motivations and just because there's destruction happening all around you does not mean you will die. It's got all the classic monster/disaster movie moments that you love to hate in it. "Movie Reality" is awesome.
If you couldn't already tell, I loved this. Much improvement from the last instalment and an entertaining action-packed addition to the monsterverse. Oscar winner? Probably not. Entertaining escapism? Most definitely. I am a little concerned about how the story will progress from here. They had plenty of scope for lots of movies after some of the things they showed in the film, but the events of KotM mean that there's little room to move with it all, we'll have to see what happens in Godzilla Vs Kong next year.
What you should do
This really deserves to be seen on the big screen. The sound and the effects combine to make some great viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If they could adapt the Orca for human use I'd be interested.
Dr Emma Russell has developed the Orca, a device that communicates with the Titans and can be used to calm them and stop any further destruction. Not everyone has the same idea about how to use the Orca though and it's taken, along with Dr Russell and her daughter Madison, after its successful test run. The race is on to recover the device and avert the impending crisis.
Godzilla is one of my favourite monsters. For years the 1998 film with Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno in it was one of my favourite films. I also love the "proper" Godzilla movies where they destroy Tokyo at every given opportunity. To have new films felt like a wonderful thing... until I saw 2014 Godzilla. I rewatched it before going to see King Of The Monsters and I remembered how underwhelmed I was. The characters didn't grab me and I found the whole thing uninspiring. The prospect of a second wasn't great, but then I saw the trailers, they were spectacular.
I really enjoyed this and went to see it again in 3D, a much more peaceful screening than the first viewing. The girl who was sitting a couple of seats away was animatedly jumping at every opportunity, her reaction was far scarier than anything that happened on the screen.
This was much improved on the last instalment. I loved that it embraced the original films and the fact that it switched its focus more to the monsters than the humans. You go to a monster movie to see monsters, and Godzilla 2014 felt like it had forgotten that fact.
If I had to describe this film to someone I'd say it was a combination of Infinity War and Jurassic Park, just with slightly larger monsters... yep, I'm fairly happy with that comparison. I may have been imagining it but I felt like there were a few nods to JP jumbled in there... maybe that's just me.
There's a collection of recognisable faces in the cast and I don't think there's a single person who underperforms. I thought that Millie Bobby Brown gave a great performance as Madison, she managed to give us a child character that wasn't particularly annoying, which may actually be a first in creature features.
Charles Dance makes an excellent bad guy, there's something about his look, a cross between a vampire and the restaurant critic from Ratatouille that works for me. He also gets to have a great moment of silent humour with Brown when they're in a lift together, it was very unexpected for their potential on-screen relationship.
We get to see four of our Titans in this movie as main players. Godzilla, obvs, Mothra, Rodan and Monster Zero, or King Ghidorah to his friends. The sheer scale they've gone to is amazing, and I thought the way they were created with their individual traits was beautiful. The one drawback to the beautiful glowing monster bodies is that the scenes have to be fairly dark to appreciate that aspect. They manage to use those aspects of the creatures to give the extra lighting the scenes need meaning that you get something that's both dark and scary as well as light and hopeful. The colours were something that really stood out to me in the advertising, the lightness of the blue and green against the anger of the orange and yellow, it shows the good and evil relationship really well.
The size of the creatures is mad and sometimes a little impossible to gauge, we get a few moments where we're given some perspective with man-made structures but they do a good job of trying to get it across in basic visual techniques too. You see a lot of them from "human" angles, from the ground running, from buildings and vehicles. It feels like an exercise in shock and awe and takes you back to Dr Serizawa's point at the beginning of the film that we're Godzilla's pets, it's not the other way around.
The effects/animation looked solid, at no point did I see anything on-screen that drew my attention away from the action. One moment in particular stood out and that was a large explosion somewhere in the middle of the movie. It was given an old fashioned kind of a look and it gave me the impression that they'd really looked at things that had come before it for inspiration.
You have to obviously accept the facts that in these sorts of films, parents will willingly put their children in immense danger, bad guys will always have prepared a short video presentation to explain their motivations and just because there's destruction happening all around you does not mean you will die. It's got all the classic monster/disaster movie moments that you love to hate in it. "Movie Reality" is awesome.
If you couldn't already tell, I loved this. Much improvement from the last instalment and an entertaining action-packed addition to the monsterverse. Oscar winner? Probably not. Entertaining escapism? Most definitely. I am a little concerned about how the story will progress from here. They had plenty of scope for lots of movies after some of the things they showed in the film, but the events of KotM mean that there's little room to move with it all, we'll have to see what happens in Godzilla Vs Kong next year.
What you should do
This really deserves to be seen on the big screen. The sound and the effects combine to make some great viewing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If they could adapt the Orca for human use I'd be interested.