Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Foxcatcher (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
‘Foxcatcher’ stars Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell, Sienna Miller, and Vanessa Redgrave with an appearance by Anthony Michael Hall and tells an account of Olympic Gold Medal Wrestling Champions, brothers Mark and Dave Schultz and their dealings with their millionaire coach, paranoid-schizophrenic John du Pont who eventually murdered Dave Schultz in 1996.
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!
The film has already been received extremely well by critics and has been praised for the performances of Ruffalo, Tatum, and Carell as the three underwent complete character transformations. The film premiered in May at the Cannes Film Festival and director Bennett Miller took home the award for best director. As someone who has seen the film I can tell you that at first I didn’t recognize any of the three lead actors when their characters first appeared on screen in the movie. I would bet money on this film being nominated for Oscars, Emmys, and any other movie awards that I cannot imagine right now based on their performances alone. Channing Tatum has even been quoted as say that this was the hardest acting challenge he has had to date in his career.
In the course of the film, we see a unique look inside the mind of an Olympic athlete via Canning Tatum’s performance as Mark Schultz and how they start out as ‘pure’ and patriotic and how those athletes can be corrupted with the promise of big money for sponsorship or with the purpose of restoring and repeating the ‘glory and standing’ they experienced previously and how it reaches into their lives and the lives of the athlete’s families. Example, in the film when at coach John du Pont’s (Carell) insistence, Mark tries to convince his brother Dave (Ruffalo) to join him in putting together team ‘Foxcatcher’ to train wrestlers for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. At first, Dave declines for the reason of not wanting to uproot his family from their home. Later on though, when its of du Pont’s opinion that Mark’s efforts are unsatisfactory du Pont takes matters into his own hands and convinces Dave himself of signing on thereby alienating Mark from and then from his brother. Eventually, the brothers reconcile but this appears to enrage du Pont who’se already starting to display the symptoms associated with paranoid-schizophrenia. Which some say is the true culprit behind du Pont’s mixer of Dave Schultz.
I would personally give this film 4 out of 5 stars. Bennett Miller couldn’t have done a better job directing this film and once again, the performances by Tatum, Ruffalo, and Carell were amazing and I have no doubt that they will become major millstones in their careers. However, there is the obvious downside of knowing the outcome in this particular instance. Although I did indeed enjoy the film it was also for all intents and purposes, the film was basically a two hour march to death for the character of Dave Schultz which was a major bummer. But hey, that’s not the fault of anyone involved in the film. That’s just what happens when you watch a true crime story. That’s my only gripe in regards to the film though. I say go see it. It is a two hour film though so be sure you grab a meal and a few beverages before you hit the theater.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ , thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Last Dragon (1985) in Movies
Jun 7, 2019
So Bad You Just Might Like it
In his quest to find “The Master” and expand his training, black martial arts expert Bruce Leroy (Taimak) has to square off against Sho’nuff the Shogun of Harlem. With me, yet?
Acting: 10
The performances aren’t what killed this movie. Julius Carry pulls off one of my all-time favorite roles as Sho-Nuff, playing a villain that’s not hard to hate. His nemesis, hero Bruce Leroy is played with a sweet innocence by Taimak who harbors a fierce fighting style similar to his idol who is none other than…well, you guessed it, Bruce Lee. Sometimes a bit overdone, I thought overall the acting fit the movie’s overblown proportions as a whole.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 5
Again, the problem isn’t the acting. It’s the characters portrayed by the actors. They are as cardboard as they come, seemingly like caricatures of actual roles. This can be summed up by one role in particular: Eddie Arkadian (Chris Murney). Part business-owner, part gangster, you look at his mean scowl and listen to his horrible lines thinking, “Why are they ruining this man’s career with this role? This is awful!” I can imagine there were a lot of career-ruining roles in this movie. I haven’t even mentioned Eddie’s girlfriend, Angela whose voice alone gives me the urge to punt a baby. I can imagine director Michael Schultz walking up to Faith Prince saying, “Great take! Now, could you do me a favor? Could you sound more like Miss Piggy in distress? Please and thank you!”
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
The style that Schultz tries to establish comes off as cheesy and overdone. He takes the phrase “A little dab’ll do ya” and decides to do the complete opposite. There is nothing special to see and too much to see at the same time. As confusing as that might sound, if you watch the movie, you’ll get it. While there are glimpses of cool effects, even those are drowned by poor cinematic direction. There is one scene towards the end where Bruce Leroy’s hands starts to glow. He slowly moves them in a wavy pattern which creates a cool effect….until he starts doing it super fast and literally multiplies himself in some crazy funhouse type of way. Whomp whomp.
Conflict: 6
Because the movie struggles to find it’s way juggling back and forth between soundtrack-driven, drama, comedy, and action movie, the conflict suffers as a result. The fighting scenes aren’t terrible when they happen but there is too much of everything else to really leave you satisfied with those scenes. I would have been happier with no attempted character or story development and just two pure hours of Bruce Leroy kicking peoples’ teeth out. When I watched the last showdown between Leroy and Sho’nuff, I thought they were really on to something. Unfortunately they got lost along the way.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 5
Love it or hate it (or both), you’ll be hard-pressed leaving the movie not quoting at least a handful of lines. It’s a movie that sticks to you whether you want it to or not. It does leave something of an impact, although not very lasting.
Pace: 3
Between Leroy searching for The Master and Eddie trying to get his girl a record deal, the movie really drags on in spots. I don’t say this often, but a little more linearity in this case would have been just fine. The Last Dragon suffers from a severe case of Much Ado About Nothing. Just when you think something is about to pop off, the scene ends with a whimper.
Plot: 2
As a kid, I thought the storyline was funny. Now I think it’s just plain sad. I don’t know how much thought went into that script, but reading through it should give any aspiring screenwriter hope that they too can make it big. Stories within ridiculous stories, a meh love story, and terrible motivations all around take a machete to the movie before it even had a chance.
Resolution: 7
Overall: 52
For my 100th review, I wanted to review a movie that had some kind of value to me. I grew up with The Last Dragon and, I have to say, it is a pretty damn fun movie. Fun, unfortunately, doesn’t always equate to good. There is a reason it has an 86% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes right now, though. No matter how you feel about it, there will come a point when you’re watching, even if it’s for five minutes, where you find yourself having an actual good time. Unfortunately it’s the other 103 minutes you have to worry about.
Acting: 10
The performances aren’t what killed this movie. Julius Carry pulls off one of my all-time favorite roles as Sho-Nuff, playing a villain that’s not hard to hate. His nemesis, hero Bruce Leroy is played with a sweet innocence by Taimak who harbors a fierce fighting style similar to his idol who is none other than…well, you guessed it, Bruce Lee. Sometimes a bit overdone, I thought overall the acting fit the movie’s overblown proportions as a whole.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 5
Again, the problem isn’t the acting. It’s the characters portrayed by the actors. They are as cardboard as they come, seemingly like caricatures of actual roles. This can be summed up by one role in particular: Eddie Arkadian (Chris Murney). Part business-owner, part gangster, you look at his mean scowl and listen to his horrible lines thinking, “Why are they ruining this man’s career with this role? This is awful!” I can imagine there were a lot of career-ruining roles in this movie. I haven’t even mentioned Eddie’s girlfriend, Angela whose voice alone gives me the urge to punt a baby. I can imagine director Michael Schultz walking up to Faith Prince saying, “Great take! Now, could you do me a favor? Could you sound more like Miss Piggy in distress? Please and thank you!”
Cinematography/Visuals: 4
The style that Schultz tries to establish comes off as cheesy and overdone. He takes the phrase “A little dab’ll do ya” and decides to do the complete opposite. There is nothing special to see and too much to see at the same time. As confusing as that might sound, if you watch the movie, you’ll get it. While there are glimpses of cool effects, even those are drowned by poor cinematic direction. There is one scene towards the end where Bruce Leroy’s hands starts to glow. He slowly moves them in a wavy pattern which creates a cool effect….until he starts doing it super fast and literally multiplies himself in some crazy funhouse type of way. Whomp whomp.
Conflict: 6
Because the movie struggles to find it’s way juggling back and forth between soundtrack-driven, drama, comedy, and action movie, the conflict suffers as a result. The fighting scenes aren’t terrible when they happen but there is too much of everything else to really leave you satisfied with those scenes. I would have been happier with no attempted character or story development and just two pure hours of Bruce Leroy kicking peoples’ teeth out. When I watched the last showdown between Leroy and Sho’nuff, I thought they were really on to something. Unfortunately they got lost along the way.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 5
Love it or hate it (or both), you’ll be hard-pressed leaving the movie not quoting at least a handful of lines. It’s a movie that sticks to you whether you want it to or not. It does leave something of an impact, although not very lasting.
Pace: 3
Between Leroy searching for The Master and Eddie trying to get his girl a record deal, the movie really drags on in spots. I don’t say this often, but a little more linearity in this case would have been just fine. The Last Dragon suffers from a severe case of Much Ado About Nothing. Just when you think something is about to pop off, the scene ends with a whimper.
Plot: 2
As a kid, I thought the storyline was funny. Now I think it’s just plain sad. I don’t know how much thought went into that script, but reading through it should give any aspiring screenwriter hope that they too can make it big. Stories within ridiculous stories, a meh love story, and terrible motivations all around take a machete to the movie before it even had a chance.
Resolution: 7
Overall: 52
For my 100th review, I wanted to review a movie that had some kind of value to me. I grew up with The Last Dragon and, I have to say, it is a pretty damn fun movie. Fun, unfortunately, doesn’t always equate to good. There is a reason it has an 86% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes right now, though. No matter how you feel about it, there will come a point when you’re watching, even if it’s for five minutes, where you find yourself having an actual good time. Unfortunately it’s the other 103 minutes you have to worry about.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
