Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Shaft (2019) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Bland, boring and uninteresting
Were you the one clamoring for a sequel to the year 2000 Samuel L. Jackson SHAFT (the sequel to the original 1971 Richard Roundtree SHAFT)? Did you remember there WAS a 2000 version of SHAFT? Do you remember the 1971 SHAFT?
Doesn't matter.
The makers of this film certainly don't remember those films for - besides casting Jackson and Roundtree - there is no similarity to either of these films.
The first SHAFT was a Blacksploitation film starring Roundtree with mucho gunfire and bloodshed and SHAFT 2000 (as I'll call it) is a full on action flick with Jackson as Roundtree's nephew fighting crime. SHAFT 2019 is none of these - the Samuel L. Jackson Shaft is now the SON of Richard Roundtree and partners with his son JJ ,John Shaft, Jr. (played by Jessie T. Usher) to investigate the death of his friend.
Okay...fine. I can forgive the change in tone and the "tweak" (I'm being generous) to the timeline. What I can't forgive is the weak script (why write any good, or interesting, dialogue when we can have all of the characters say Samuel L. Jackson's signature motherf*^#er over and over) by 3 different writers (never a good sign) that were all, clearly, just in it for the paycheck.
Jessie T. Usher (he played Will Smith's son in the also ill-advised sequel to INDEPENDENCE DAY) is a bland lead with no gravitas and no swagger that starts out young and naive and is supposed to develop (under the tutelage of his father) street smarts but, really, just becomes annoying.
Regina Hall (GIRLS TRIP), Titus Welliver (BOSCH), Method Man (!) and Luna Lauren Velez (DEXTER) are all sleepwalking through underwritten roles just counting the minutes until they can take their paychecks to the bank.
At the heart of all of this "missed opportunities" is Director Tim Story (RIDE ALONG) he directs this film like he has someplace else to be, never missing an opportunity to be obvious (for example, JJ's friend - Karim - who's death sparks what passes for a plot in this film - might as well be walking around with a "Dead Man Walking" sign on him). Story's direction is lazy (and that's doing injustice to the word lazy) and obvious with no spark of ingenuity or imagination to be found.
And then there's Samuel L. Jackson as SHAFT. He defines the term "sleepwalking through the picture" looking bored and uninterested throughout and HE'S THE BEST THING IN THE FILM! Thank goodness his charisma and charm ooze out of him without really trying - for he didn't really try here.
Save 2 hours of your life - skip SHAFT - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Doesn't matter.
The makers of this film certainly don't remember those films for - besides casting Jackson and Roundtree - there is no similarity to either of these films.
The first SHAFT was a Blacksploitation film starring Roundtree with mucho gunfire and bloodshed and SHAFT 2000 (as I'll call it) is a full on action flick with Jackson as Roundtree's nephew fighting crime. SHAFT 2019 is none of these - the Samuel L. Jackson Shaft is now the SON of Richard Roundtree and partners with his son JJ ,John Shaft, Jr. (played by Jessie T. Usher) to investigate the death of his friend.
Okay...fine. I can forgive the change in tone and the "tweak" (I'm being generous) to the timeline. What I can't forgive is the weak script (why write any good, or interesting, dialogue when we can have all of the characters say Samuel L. Jackson's signature motherf*^#er over and over) by 3 different writers (never a good sign) that were all, clearly, just in it for the paycheck.
Jessie T. Usher (he played Will Smith's son in the also ill-advised sequel to INDEPENDENCE DAY) is a bland lead with no gravitas and no swagger that starts out young and naive and is supposed to develop (under the tutelage of his father) street smarts but, really, just becomes annoying.
Regina Hall (GIRLS TRIP), Titus Welliver (BOSCH), Method Man (!) and Luna Lauren Velez (DEXTER) are all sleepwalking through underwritten roles just counting the minutes until they can take their paychecks to the bank.
At the heart of all of this "missed opportunities" is Director Tim Story (RIDE ALONG) he directs this film like he has someplace else to be, never missing an opportunity to be obvious (for example, JJ's friend - Karim - who's death sparks what passes for a plot in this film - might as well be walking around with a "Dead Man Walking" sign on him). Story's direction is lazy (and that's doing injustice to the word lazy) and obvious with no spark of ingenuity or imagination to be found.
And then there's Samuel L. Jackson as SHAFT. He defines the term "sleepwalking through the picture" looking bored and uninterested throughout and HE'S THE BEST THING IN THE FILM! Thank goodness his charisma and charm ooze out of him without really trying - for he didn't really try here.
Save 2 hours of your life - skip SHAFT - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? There is always a purpose and a message the film-maker’s have manufactured and edited to suit themselves, I find. They often leave you with more questions than answers. The best ones are open to interpretation enough to allow you in; allowing the source material to speak for itself. The worst ones rely on talking heads too much and can feel very manipulative.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond, is fortunately much more of the former than the latter. However, two days after watching this mind-blowing exposé of how Jim Carrey behaved on set of the excellent Man On The Moon, playing genius / lunatic Andy Kaufman, I am still left pondering what to think of it all. Is Carrey an ego maniac who belongs in a straight-jacket, or is he a hippie genius, dedicated to his art, who would do anything to achieve a perfect performance?
It focuses on a fully bearded Carrey reliving his memories of 20 years ago. Reinforced by a plethora of behind the scenes footage, which at turns is hilarious, shocking, confusing and revealing, in uncomfortable and fascinating ways. The premise is that at the time of being cast Kaufman’s spirit inhabited Carrey, allowing him to channel the actual man, and BE him, rather than merely play him!
Whatever your thoughts on method acting, and how indulgent that can be, it is always astonishing to see just how far he went! And why everyone else allowed him to get away with it? Director Milos Forman is forced to cope with never talking to “Jim”, only to “Andy”, and seems often at the point of break-down. Fellow cast members seem to deal with it in different ways too. Danny DeVito seems in awe; Courtney Love seems to embrace it; Paul Giamatti seems very uncomfortable. But the whole show goes ahead with Carrey as king. Simply extraordinary!
The thing is, both 1999 Jim and 2017 Jim never seem entirely insane, but rather totally in control and eloquent. It seems as if every “crazy” thing he did was a choice, conscious or unconscious, that as an actor he was happy to be part of; as if the performance was all that mattered. There have always been mental health questions about Carrey, and this throws a bright spotlight on his technique, personality and self-awareness. At some point you just have to say “wow” and to a degree applaud it.
Your enjoyment of it hinges on how much of a Carrey fan you are? If you have never liked or got him as a performer then you will be screaming at the screen in consternation. If you love his work then this is indespesible viewing! Either way, there is something wondrous about it! Just consider, Carrey won a Golden Globe for this role, and remains the only person ever to do so not to be Oscar nominated…
There is also a suggestion the whole thing is a joke, in typical Kaufman style, using the footage to create a trick on the audience… Documentaries, they can’t be trusted, can they? You decide.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Jay and Silent Bob Reboot (2019) in Movies
Mar 7, 2020
To put it simply, if you're not too keen on anything related to Jay & Silent Bob or Kevin Smith, then this entry is not going to change your mind!
The first film from way back in 2001 was already loveably dumb enough. It's collision of immature humour, social commentary, slapstick silliness and plentiful references to past Kevin Smith projects leant it an awkward charm, and things are no different this time around, with exception of everyone involved looking older.
The plot revolves around the titular duo traveling to Hollywood to stop the reboot of a comic book film featuring characters based on their likenesses (literally the same plot as the first). Cue plenty of remarks about the state of cinema and the unstoppable geyser of reboots/remakes/re-imaginings, followed by an absurd road trip, and everything feels familiar and homely.
Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith are just as likable as they every have been as Jay & SB, and the supporting characters, lead by Smith's daughter Harley Quinn, are much the same (although they took a bit longer to grow on me).
There is a veritable plethora of cameos and Clerks call backs peppered throughout, including the likes of Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Chris Hemsworth, Joey Lauren Adams, Melissa Benoist, Val Kilmer, Jason Biggs, Robert Kirkman....the list goes on and on. None of these inclusions feel particularly forced, and everyone seems pretty willing to be a part of the silliness.
The script is a mixed bag of decent gags, meta lines (sometimes a bit too over the top, to the point of almost insulting the audience!), Kevin Smith talking a whole bunch of shit about himself and some genuinely touching moments. Seriously - towards the films climax, I genuinely fretted that i might let out a little sob...
The truth is, I grew up watching films like Clerks, Dogma, Mallrats etc, and whenever a new entry is put out, I remember just how much these niche comedies mean to me. Jay & Silent Bob Reboot fits right in there with the rest of them.
It's not perfect by any means, but this is a film that can pull off Chris Jericho playing a KKK leader, Redman and Method Man giving parenting, whilst still including a lip wobbling tribute to the late Stan Lee (a we'll know fan of Kevin Smith and his work). How can anyone not appreciate that!?
The first film from way back in 2001 was already loveably dumb enough. It's collision of immature humour, social commentary, slapstick silliness and plentiful references to past Kevin Smith projects leant it an awkward charm, and things are no different this time around, with exception of everyone involved looking older.
The plot revolves around the titular duo traveling to Hollywood to stop the reboot of a comic book film featuring characters based on their likenesses (literally the same plot as the first). Cue plenty of remarks about the state of cinema and the unstoppable geyser of reboots/remakes/re-imaginings, followed by an absurd road trip, and everything feels familiar and homely.
Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith are just as likable as they every have been as Jay & SB, and the supporting characters, lead by Smith's daughter Harley Quinn, are much the same (although they took a bit longer to grow on me).
There is a veritable plethora of cameos and Clerks call backs peppered throughout, including the likes of Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Chris Hemsworth, Joey Lauren Adams, Melissa Benoist, Val Kilmer, Jason Biggs, Robert Kirkman....the list goes on and on. None of these inclusions feel particularly forced, and everyone seems pretty willing to be a part of the silliness.
The script is a mixed bag of decent gags, meta lines (sometimes a bit too over the top, to the point of almost insulting the audience!), Kevin Smith talking a whole bunch of shit about himself and some genuinely touching moments. Seriously - towards the films climax, I genuinely fretted that i might let out a little sob...
The truth is, I grew up watching films like Clerks, Dogma, Mallrats etc, and whenever a new entry is put out, I remember just how much these niche comedies mean to me. Jay & Silent Bob Reboot fits right in there with the rest of them.
It's not perfect by any means, but this is a film that can pull off Chris Jericho playing a KKK leader, Redman and Method Man giving parenting, whilst still including a lip wobbling tribute to the late Stan Lee (a we'll know fan of Kevin Smith and his work). How can anyone not appreciate that!?
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jul 21, 2020
The first Thor film gets a bad wrap, and I think it's due to a combination of people forgetting just how good it is, and it perhaps being tarnished by it's underwhelming sequel, when in reality, Thor marks Marvel Studios first steps into more cosmic territory, a realm that was once deemed a little too silly for the general public, and pulls it off in style.
Firstly, translating the many characters of the Thor comic series is no easy feat. They all talk in a Shakespearean dialect, and have ridiculous costumes. The script though is fantastic. The Asgardian characters are still very bombastic, but when mixed with humans from Earth, it's becomes naturally comical. It doesn't feel corny, and somehow, it works very well.
As for the costumes, everyone just looks badass truth be told so hats off to the costume department.
Chris Hemsworth is the embodiment of Thor, and it's truly difficult to see anyone else in the role. He's charming, funny, and has just the right amount of god-like angst, and it's easy to see why he's become a firm favourite as the MCU has continued to expand.
The same goes for Tom Hiddleston as Loki. His portrayal of the God of Mischief is equal parts sinister, slimy, and sympathetic. He's the villain that you can't help but love and it's a testament to his performance that Loki has remained a mainstay in the MCU, a franchise that is often guilty of the one-and-done method when it comes to villains.
The cast is rounded out by a stellar lineup, including Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Jaime Alexander, Stellan Skaragård, Idris Elba and even includes a bigger role for the always excellent Clark Gregg. This film also serves as the introduction of Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, another MCU staple. It's a strong cast list without a doubt.
The action set pieces are all pretty fun, and the effects still just about hold up. I'd argue that Thor looks better than the first two Iron Man films in that respect. Asgard looks great as well.
Another thing I absolutely LOVE about Thor is the music score by Patrick Doyle. In terms of original orchestral music, it's probably by favourite within the MCU (possibly on par with Infinity War and Endgame) but it's fantastic, and gives me goosebumps every damn time I watch this movie
Thor is action packed, with a fantastic script and score, and a great cast with well fleshed out characters. Bringing Kenneth Branagh on board as director was a great choice, and overall, the film deserves way more love than it gets.
Ignoring the first Avengers movie, Thor is the crown jewel of phase one!
Firstly, translating the many characters of the Thor comic series is no easy feat. They all talk in a Shakespearean dialect, and have ridiculous costumes. The script though is fantastic. The Asgardian characters are still very bombastic, but when mixed with humans from Earth, it's becomes naturally comical. It doesn't feel corny, and somehow, it works very well.
As for the costumes, everyone just looks badass truth be told so hats off to the costume department.
Chris Hemsworth is the embodiment of Thor, and it's truly difficult to see anyone else in the role. He's charming, funny, and has just the right amount of god-like angst, and it's easy to see why he's become a firm favourite as the MCU has continued to expand.
The same goes for Tom Hiddleston as Loki. His portrayal of the God of Mischief is equal parts sinister, slimy, and sympathetic. He's the villain that you can't help but love and it's a testament to his performance that Loki has remained a mainstay in the MCU, a franchise that is often guilty of the one-and-done method when it comes to villains.
The cast is rounded out by a stellar lineup, including Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Jaime Alexander, Stellan Skaragård, Idris Elba and even includes a bigger role for the always excellent Clark Gregg. This film also serves as the introduction of Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, another MCU staple. It's a strong cast list without a doubt.
The action set pieces are all pretty fun, and the effects still just about hold up. I'd argue that Thor looks better than the first two Iron Man films in that respect. Asgard looks great as well.
Another thing I absolutely LOVE about Thor is the music score by Patrick Doyle. In terms of original orchestral music, it's probably by favourite within the MCU (possibly on par with Infinity War and Endgame) but it's fantastic, and gives me goosebumps every damn time I watch this movie
Thor is action packed, with a fantastic script and score, and a great cast with well fleshed out characters. Bringing Kenneth Branagh on board as director was a great choice, and overall, the film deserves way more love than it gets.
Ignoring the first Avengers movie, Thor is the crown jewel of phase one!
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated A Game of Thrones in Books
Oct 19, 2018
Full review can be found on my blog: www.diaryofdifference.com
This book will shake and break your heart. This book will make you realise that life is anything but gentle. But this book will also bring you the greatest adventure you have yet to see.
I have bought my whole book collection back in 2014. I have been procrastinating with this series for four years. And today, while writing this review, I thank the old gods and the new, for convincing me to read the first book.
I am probably one of the last people that have reviewed this book, and I assume you all already know a lot about the Game of Thrones series.
It is a book about one Iron Throne, and all the wars, fights, betrayals are about who will be sitting on that throne, and who will be in charge of all kingdoms.
Now, starting off, I am still not sure why people would send armies and armies of soldiers in order to win the throne, when it seems that no matter who becomes a king, that person gets instantly killed. And no kingdom respects each other, and kings and lords keep fighting off and wasting resources for a lost purpose, so there’s that as well.
We have many houses, Stark, Lannister, Baratheon, Tully, Arryn, Targaryen, Tyrell, Greyjoy, Martell, etc - and they all feature with something unique to their house. Most importantly, they all either want the throne, want revenge or want them both.
But just to clarify - I loved the book!
George R.R. Martin is a genius! He has created this amazing world, and characters that are so alive that make you either hate them or love them, but with all your heart. He has created relationships so tangled and stories so well written, that he puts other authors to shame.
The book is written from a third person perspective, and each chapter features a character. And with each chapter, George moves the time gradually, so we are not stuck in a loop of time pause. I enjoyed this method quite a lot! It kept the story line going very smoothly.
‘’Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.’’
There were so many characters I admired. But my connection with these characters in this book is unlike any other connection I have made. I usually either love or hate a character. But here, I judged actions, and relationships, and things people said and did!
I liked Eddard Stark’s bravery, and his manliness, but I didn’t like the fact that he was too honest for his own good.
‘’Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?
‘’That’s the only time a man an be brave’’.
I loved Arya’s fierceness, but I didn’t like her stubbornness.
‘’For the second time today Arya reflected that life was not fair.’’
I liked Sansa’s politeness, and girlishness. She had all the perfect manners, but she also would betray family for love.
I loved Jon Snow’s story, and how he overcame his past, and learned to live with it.
‘’Let me give you some counsel, bastard.‘’ Lannister said. ‘’Never forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armor yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.’’
I loved many other characters for things they did, and hated many others, but I cherished the difference in each and every character, and that was the beauty in it - that even though an author can create so many characters, he can make them so different from each other.
In this book, you will encounter everything: mostly mean people, ready to kill everyone and anyone standing in the way of their plans. You will read about a story of a family that falls apart, a kingdom that vanishes, a fight between kings, how a little girl will learn life in one day, how a mother will watch her children disappear, one by one.
This book will shake and break your heart. This book will make you realise that life is anything but gentle. But this book will also bring you the greatest adventure you have yet to see.
I have bought my whole book collection back in 2014. I have been procrastinating with this series for four years. And today, while writing this review, I thank the old gods and the new, for convincing me to read the first book.
I am probably one of the last people that have reviewed this book, and I assume you all already know a lot about the Game of Thrones series.
It is a book about one Iron Throne, and all the wars, fights, betrayals are about who will be sitting on that throne, and who will be in charge of all kingdoms.
Now, starting off, I am still not sure why people would send armies and armies of soldiers in order to win the throne, when it seems that no matter who becomes a king, that person gets instantly killed. And no kingdom respects each other, and kings and lords keep fighting off and wasting resources for a lost purpose, so there’s that as well.
We have many houses, Stark, Lannister, Baratheon, Tully, Arryn, Targaryen, Tyrell, Greyjoy, Martell, etc - and they all feature with something unique to their house. Most importantly, they all either want the throne, want revenge or want them both.
But just to clarify - I loved the book!
George R.R. Martin is a genius! He has created this amazing world, and characters that are so alive that make you either hate them or love them, but with all your heart. He has created relationships so tangled and stories so well written, that he puts other authors to shame.
The book is written from a third person perspective, and each chapter features a character. And with each chapter, George moves the time gradually, so we are not stuck in a loop of time pause. I enjoyed this method quite a lot! It kept the story line going very smoothly.
‘’Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.’’
There were so many characters I admired. But my connection with these characters in this book is unlike any other connection I have made. I usually either love or hate a character. But here, I judged actions, and relationships, and things people said and did!
I liked Eddard Stark’s bravery, and his manliness, but I didn’t like the fact that he was too honest for his own good.
‘’Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?
‘’That’s the only time a man an be brave’’.
I loved Arya’s fierceness, but I didn’t like her stubbornness.
‘’For the second time today Arya reflected that life was not fair.’’
I liked Sansa’s politeness, and girlishness. She had all the perfect manners, but she also would betray family for love.
I loved Jon Snow’s story, and how he overcame his past, and learned to live with it.
‘’Let me give you some counsel, bastard.‘’ Lannister said. ‘’Never forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armor yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.’’
I loved many other characters for things they did, and hated many others, but I cherished the difference in each and every character, and that was the beauty in it - that even though an author can create so many characters, he can make them so different from each other.
In this book, you will encounter everything: mostly mean people, ready to kill everyone and anyone standing in the way of their plans. You will read about a story of a family that falls apart, a kingdom that vanishes, a fight between kings, how a little girl will learn life in one day, how a mother will watch her children disappear, one by one.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Public Enemies (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
The year is 1933 and bank robberies are at an all time high. John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and Pretty Boy Floyd are at the top of their game. In the public eye, robbers are looked at as heroes instead of criminals. Dillinger enjoys the fruit of his labor to the fullest until the day Melvin Purvis is put in charge of the FBI division down in Chicago. Word traveled fast of how one of FBI's top agents (Purvis) took down Pretty Boy Floyd and hopes are high that he can help in the newly announced "war on crime." Once Purvis arrived in Chicago, the crime wave of the 30's that was on a steady uprise took a drastic decline. Bank robberies were never the same as Dillinger's friends began dropping like flies. As Dillinger's motto of not thinking about tomorrow since he's too busy enjoying today comes back to haunt him, he soon realizes that he can only hide for so long and that the feds will catch up with him sooner or later.
The most noticeable thing about the film is its cinematography. Michael Mann has used the same method of shooting Public Enemies with HD digital cameras like he did with Collateral. This could be a hassle to some viewers as the picture isn't as shaky as it was in something like Cloverfield, but isn't as crystal clear and steady as you may have found in some of Mann's earlier work like Heat or most other films, for that matter. Perspective plays a huge role in this film. Certain lighting seems to come off better being shot in HD digital and it certainly shows, but the imperfections seem to give the film more character. Some people might throw the word, "edgy," around, but we'll settle on saying this style of filming feels like a more realistic approach. It makes the audience feel like they're actually amongst these gangsters during their heyday.
It almost felt like Christian Bale didn't really want to be there. Between this and Terminator: Salvation, he's really lacking the charisma and talent he's shown in films like The Prestige and The Machinist or even American Psycho. Maybe he's just hit his peak and has nothing else up his sleeve to wow audiences. Bale has hit an eye-catching slump, which is hard to say since this is coming from a long time fan. As long as he continues to be cast in big budget films though and those films wind up doing extremely well at the box office, then not many people are going to notice a difference in the actor's lackluster performance.
Johnny Depp, on the other hand, stole every scene he was in. His cockiness and confidence in his abilities in what he does just gave life to Dillinger that makes you generally like him. You want to see him escape as soon as he gets caught, pull off that next big robbery, and succeed at everything he does so he can run off with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and live happily ever after. His dialogue is also generally pretty incredible. In the scene where he's confronting Agent Purvis from behind bars, Dillinger is asking Purvis about what it was like to kill a man. How their eyes looked and how you can literally watch a man just drift away by staring into their eyes while they're dying. That that whole experience could keep a man up at night. Purvis asks Dillinger what keeps him up at night. Dillinger, who always seemed to be chewing gum, replies, "Coffee." Dillinger just felt like one of Depp's better acting roles, as of late. He showed more emotion than we're generally used to seeing from him and it was just an incredibly strong performance from the Oscar nominee.
The film has a lot of great dialogue, intriguing character interaction, and it's interesting watching the story unfold of how the crime wave of the 30s may have come to an end, but what really makes the film worth seeing is the shootouts. Any scene that begins with somebody holding a gun is worth getting excited over. There's a scene in the woods in the latter half of the film that is worth the price of admission alone. It takes place at night and everything is littered with darkness until the tommy guns make an appearance. The way the guns light up everything else around the characters firing them was a nice touch. Small explosions erupting from a chamber every time somebody pulled the trigger. This is some of the best gunfire to ever be filmed.
When it comes to Public Enemies, it is one of the best films of the year which is mentioned in at least one of the TV spots. Anyone who was a fan of Michael Mann's previous films (or gangster films, in general) will more than likely walk away from this film satisfied. Johnny Depp is still at the top of his game while Christian Bale seems to be winding down. Public Enemies is a film worthy of the summer blockbuster season which will satisfy the appetite of any fan of crime films.
The most noticeable thing about the film is its cinematography. Michael Mann has used the same method of shooting Public Enemies with HD digital cameras like he did with Collateral. This could be a hassle to some viewers as the picture isn't as shaky as it was in something like Cloverfield, but isn't as crystal clear and steady as you may have found in some of Mann's earlier work like Heat or most other films, for that matter. Perspective plays a huge role in this film. Certain lighting seems to come off better being shot in HD digital and it certainly shows, but the imperfections seem to give the film more character. Some people might throw the word, "edgy," around, but we'll settle on saying this style of filming feels like a more realistic approach. It makes the audience feel like they're actually amongst these gangsters during their heyday.
It almost felt like Christian Bale didn't really want to be there. Between this and Terminator: Salvation, he's really lacking the charisma and talent he's shown in films like The Prestige and The Machinist or even American Psycho. Maybe he's just hit his peak and has nothing else up his sleeve to wow audiences. Bale has hit an eye-catching slump, which is hard to say since this is coming from a long time fan. As long as he continues to be cast in big budget films though and those films wind up doing extremely well at the box office, then not many people are going to notice a difference in the actor's lackluster performance.
Johnny Depp, on the other hand, stole every scene he was in. His cockiness and confidence in his abilities in what he does just gave life to Dillinger that makes you generally like him. You want to see him escape as soon as he gets caught, pull off that next big robbery, and succeed at everything he does so he can run off with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and live happily ever after. His dialogue is also generally pretty incredible. In the scene where he's confronting Agent Purvis from behind bars, Dillinger is asking Purvis about what it was like to kill a man. How their eyes looked and how you can literally watch a man just drift away by staring into their eyes while they're dying. That that whole experience could keep a man up at night. Purvis asks Dillinger what keeps him up at night. Dillinger, who always seemed to be chewing gum, replies, "Coffee." Dillinger just felt like one of Depp's better acting roles, as of late. He showed more emotion than we're generally used to seeing from him and it was just an incredibly strong performance from the Oscar nominee.
The film has a lot of great dialogue, intriguing character interaction, and it's interesting watching the story unfold of how the crime wave of the 30s may have come to an end, but what really makes the film worth seeing is the shootouts. Any scene that begins with somebody holding a gun is worth getting excited over. There's a scene in the woods in the latter half of the film that is worth the price of admission alone. It takes place at night and everything is littered with darkness until the tommy guns make an appearance. The way the guns light up everything else around the characters firing them was a nice touch. Small explosions erupting from a chamber every time somebody pulled the trigger. This is some of the best gunfire to ever be filmed.
When it comes to Public Enemies, it is one of the best films of the year which is mentioned in at least one of the TV spots. Anyone who was a fan of Michael Mann's previous films (or gangster films, in general) will more than likely walk away from this film satisfied. Johnny Depp is still at the top of his game while Christian Bale seems to be winding down. Public Enemies is a film worthy of the summer blockbuster season which will satisfy the appetite of any fan of crime films.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Under the Silver Lake (2018) in Movies
Jul 6, 2019
In David Robert Mitchell’s (It Follows) Under the Silver Lake, Andrew Garfield portrays a jobless and lethargic young man named Sam. Apart from his obsession with conspiracy theories and finding obscure messages in common pop culture, Sam typically spies on his topless and bird-loving neighbor. He also blatantly ignores the fact that he’s facing eviction in five days for unpaid rent. His current infatuation is a zine entitled Under the Silver Lake, which seems to mirror what’s currently transpiring in Los Angeles. Sam develops a crush on his new neighbor named Sarah (Riley Keough), who seems to disappear without a trace overnight. What begins as an investigation into Sarah’s current whereabouts evolves into something deeply rooted in the peculiar.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Night Of - Season 1 in TV
Jul 19, 2017
Fantastic performances by the entire cast (4 more)
Phenomenal Script
Beautiful cinematography
Clever use of lighting
Brillaint direction
A Masterpice of Storytelling.
The Night Of stars Riz Ahmed as Naz, a young guy from Manhattan from an Asian family, who makes a series of bad decisions on what was supposed to be a simple night out; leading to his subsequent arrest and trial for the murder of a young girl. While there is no denying that Naz made some bad decisions and it is hard to deny he looks guilty, we are on this guy’s side at the start of the series. Then Jon Turturro comes into the show as Naz’s lawer John Stone. This is Turturro’s best role in years, possibly in his entire career and it serves as a stark reminder how wasted this guy is in the Transformers series and Adam Sandler Movies. Both leads give convincing performances as their respective characters, thrust into a situation that ends up being way out of their depth, they are both fish out of water, on either side of the justice system and we see the adapt or die method used by each of them.
Preacher, Westworld and Stranger Things are widely considered to be the best new TV shows of 2016, but I reckon that The Night Of is probably the most important new show broadcast this year. In the wake of a plethora of horrific, recent terror attacks across the world and following the vote to elect Donald Trump as the president of the most powerful country in the world, (a man who once expressed the desire to ban all Muslims from entering the USA,) this show seems unfortunately more relevant than ever. The show doesn’t shove any explicit propaganda down your throat, but there is no denying the racist undertones present and the social issues that the show presents to us. The writing is also fantastic throughout and this is by far the most painfully realistic show I have seen in the last few years. The show isn’t without its quirks though, but the consistently realistic nature of the writing and the performances are what make this show so immersive. The series also takes the viewer on a journey of discovery, constantly dropping unexpected character twists and new hints towards what really happened on the night referred to in the show’s title. This show throws so many interesting conversation starters into the viewership’s collective mind and constantly keeps you guessing as a spectator to these gruesome events.
This is a show that everyone should try, in a post brexit world where racial tensions are at an extreme high, this show is painfully relevant to people on either side of the argument. The crime itself becomes a background element as we see the biased treatment of a young Muslim man by the system and the assumptions made for and against him. There are so many backdoor deals being made between lawyers and other law officials and really the worst light is thrown on the criminal justice system itself and how broken the whole thing is. By halfway through the series’ 8 episodes, the issue of whether or not Naz actually committed the crime is irrelevant, the most important thing at this point being trying to keep everybody involved with this high profile case happy.
Although the moral points that this show chooses to pursue are unflinching and extremely well handled, the more technical aspects of the show are also expertly executed. I have already spoke about Riz Ahmed and John Turturro’s stand out performances, but the show’s supporting cast doesn’t contain any weak spots either and features a well rounded variety of races, ages and social classes. Naz’s family are all brilliant as are the other lawyers that make up the case. I have also already spoke about the high quality script present in the show, but I feel that the show’s writing team can’t be praised enough for the consistently high quality script they have produced. The cinematography of the show is also impressive throughout, with each shot perfectly complimenting the tone that the show sets and framing the actor’s performances masterfully. The use of light is also well implemented and adds to each shot composition and the overall aesthetic of the show. As highlighted above the actor’s performances are fantastic, but they are guided very well by the show’s directors. The score is also a nice addition to the tone of the show, as are all of the sound effects and audio used throughout.
Overall, this is the definition of great television and is the example that all other TV shows should aim for. Even if you don’t agree with the moral compasses of the show’s characters, it is objectively impossible to deny the show’s high caliber of technical filmaking. This is without a doubt one of the best shows aired in 2016 and could even be considered as one of the best seasons of a TV show of the last decade.
Preacher, Westworld and Stranger Things are widely considered to be the best new TV shows of 2016, but I reckon that The Night Of is probably the most important new show broadcast this year. In the wake of a plethora of horrific, recent terror attacks across the world and following the vote to elect Donald Trump as the president of the most powerful country in the world, (a man who once expressed the desire to ban all Muslims from entering the USA,) this show seems unfortunately more relevant than ever. The show doesn’t shove any explicit propaganda down your throat, but there is no denying the racist undertones present and the social issues that the show presents to us. The writing is also fantastic throughout and this is by far the most painfully realistic show I have seen in the last few years. The show isn’t without its quirks though, but the consistently realistic nature of the writing and the performances are what make this show so immersive. The series also takes the viewer on a journey of discovery, constantly dropping unexpected character twists and new hints towards what really happened on the night referred to in the show’s title. This show throws so many interesting conversation starters into the viewership’s collective mind and constantly keeps you guessing as a spectator to these gruesome events.
This is a show that everyone should try, in a post brexit world where racial tensions are at an extreme high, this show is painfully relevant to people on either side of the argument. The crime itself becomes a background element as we see the biased treatment of a young Muslim man by the system and the assumptions made for and against him. There are so many backdoor deals being made between lawyers and other law officials and really the worst light is thrown on the criminal justice system itself and how broken the whole thing is. By halfway through the series’ 8 episodes, the issue of whether or not Naz actually committed the crime is irrelevant, the most important thing at this point being trying to keep everybody involved with this high profile case happy.
Although the moral points that this show chooses to pursue are unflinching and extremely well handled, the more technical aspects of the show are also expertly executed. I have already spoke about Riz Ahmed and John Turturro’s stand out performances, but the show’s supporting cast doesn’t contain any weak spots either and features a well rounded variety of races, ages and social classes. Naz’s family are all brilliant as are the other lawyers that make up the case. I have also already spoke about the high quality script present in the show, but I feel that the show’s writing team can’t be praised enough for the consistently high quality script they have produced. The cinematography of the show is also impressive throughout, with each shot perfectly complimenting the tone that the show sets and framing the actor’s performances masterfully. The use of light is also well implemented and adds to each shot composition and the overall aesthetic of the show. As highlighted above the actor’s performances are fantastic, but they are guided very well by the show’s directors. The score is also a nice addition to the tone of the show, as are all of the sound effects and audio used throughout.
Overall, this is the definition of great television and is the example that all other TV shows should aim for. Even if you don’t agree with the moral compasses of the show’s characters, it is objectively impossible to deny the show’s high caliber of technical filmaking. This is without a doubt one of the best shows aired in 2016 and could even be considered as one of the best seasons of a TV show of the last decade.
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
Mar 13, 2019
Masterful visuals, including many practical effects wonders (1 more)
Extraordinary score by Hans Zimmer
Relationships bud in the film, but feel forced (1 more)
A few plot-holes, albeit none thoroughly distracting
Contains spoilers, click to show
With two of the most scathing reviews I’ve written under my belt, I figured it was time to write about my favorite movie of all time, Christopher Nolan’s “Inception.”
“Inception” revolves around Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a spy who uses military-grade technology and shared dreams to extract information from his marks. He and his team are unwittingly tested by their latest target, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe) for recruitment into a different kind of job: Inception, a type of job using the same skills and technology to implant an idea. In particular, Saito calls on Cobb to plant an idea on his business competitor, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In spite of his reluctancy about this type of job, Saito’s offer to clear Cobb of a murder charge sways Cobb in favor of taking the job.
Cobb gathers new help, including Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect he finds capable of creating complex labyrinths. With the help of a deep sedative, the team is able to make Fischer have dreams within dreams within dreams, a method that makes the mark more receptive to the implanted idea. It comes with a cost, though: The dreams become more unstable as they continue going deeper into the dream world, and the sedative itself creates the risk of actual death within the dream.
First of all, let’s talk cast. Already, we’ve got four top-grade talents named, but we also have Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Cobb’s point man, Tom Hardy as Eames, a forger, and additional roles filled by Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. Nolan did not lack for talent in this one, and by gosh it shows.
Visually, “Inception” excels most with making the impossible as real as cinema can make it. Throughout the film, characters are able to manipulate the rules of the dream world, making for moments where fruit explodes, cities bend, and stairwells become endless. Beyond portraying the impossible, though, the film has to show the real world, too. In those scenes, an aesthetic that can’t exactly be placed takes over. The technology has a slightly retro-futuristic feel to it, while the fashion and settings rely on classic tastes. Even Hans Zimmer’s score, which samples from the work of vocalist Edith Piaf, contributes to the chronological ambiguity of the movie. By not being able to place the film’s setting in any particular year or even decade, it seems prepackaged to become a classic film.
Speaking of Zimmer, he’s is at his best with this score. The complexity of the film reflects in a layered score, and listening to it on its own is its own sort of treat. It’s one of those symphonic recordings that the listener will pick out something they never noticed before every time.
But even above the stellar cast and visuals that have inspired reality-bending sequences in films since, this film’s biggest success is its use of approachable themes and concepts to tell a story within a story. Nearly a decade after its initial release, fans have widely circulated the idea that “Inception” is a film about storytelling. Concepts as basic as nesting stories within stories play out many ways across the plot. It also plays with common experiences in dreams, turning experiences like the feeling of falling into tools for Cobb’s team to exploit. Essentially, if you can dream, you already have a primer in this film’s core principles.
It’s not without flaws, as no film is. Certain moments fail to hold up upon closer inspection. For instance, the relationship between Ariadne and Arthur comes across forced. Those moments aside, from its foreshadowing opening to its meaningfully open-ended ending, “Inception” is an absolute marvel.
“Inception” revolves around Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a spy who uses military-grade technology and shared dreams to extract information from his marks. He and his team are unwittingly tested by their latest target, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe) for recruitment into a different kind of job: Inception, a type of job using the same skills and technology to implant an idea. In particular, Saito calls on Cobb to plant an idea on his business competitor, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In spite of his reluctancy about this type of job, Saito’s offer to clear Cobb of a murder charge sways Cobb in favor of taking the job.
Cobb gathers new help, including Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect he finds capable of creating complex labyrinths. With the help of a deep sedative, the team is able to make Fischer have dreams within dreams within dreams, a method that makes the mark more receptive to the implanted idea. It comes with a cost, though: The dreams become more unstable as they continue going deeper into the dream world, and the sedative itself creates the risk of actual death within the dream.
First of all, let’s talk cast. Already, we’ve got four top-grade talents named, but we also have Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Cobb’s point man, Tom Hardy as Eames, a forger, and additional roles filled by Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. Nolan did not lack for talent in this one, and by gosh it shows.
Visually, “Inception” excels most with making the impossible as real as cinema can make it. Throughout the film, characters are able to manipulate the rules of the dream world, making for moments where fruit explodes, cities bend, and stairwells become endless. Beyond portraying the impossible, though, the film has to show the real world, too. In those scenes, an aesthetic that can’t exactly be placed takes over. The technology has a slightly retro-futuristic feel to it, while the fashion and settings rely on classic tastes. Even Hans Zimmer’s score, which samples from the work of vocalist Edith Piaf, contributes to the chronological ambiguity of the movie. By not being able to place the film’s setting in any particular year or even decade, it seems prepackaged to become a classic film.
Speaking of Zimmer, he’s is at his best with this score. The complexity of the film reflects in a layered score, and listening to it on its own is its own sort of treat. It’s one of those symphonic recordings that the listener will pick out something they never noticed before every time.
But even above the stellar cast and visuals that have inspired reality-bending sequences in films since, this film’s biggest success is its use of approachable themes and concepts to tell a story within a story. Nearly a decade after its initial release, fans have widely circulated the idea that “Inception” is a film about storytelling. Concepts as basic as nesting stories within stories play out many ways across the plot. It also plays with common experiences in dreams, turning experiences like the feeling of falling into tools for Cobb’s team to exploit. Essentially, if you can dream, you already have a primer in this film’s core principles.
It’s not without flaws, as no film is. Certain moments fail to hold up upon closer inspection. For instance, the relationship between Ariadne and Arthur comes across forced. Those moments aside, from its foreshadowing opening to its meaningfully open-ended ending, “Inception” is an absolute marvel.
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).