Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc (1999) in Movies
May 3, 2019
Sprawling, episodic historical drama which brought the Hollywood career of Luc Besson to a firm stop. 15th century France is invaded by the English, but leading the resistance is a teenage girl who believes she can hear the voice of God. She may be able to defeat the invaders, but can she survive the snake pit of court and church politics?
So: Joan of Arc, an iconic, legendary, complex figure, is brought to the screen by Milla Jovovich, whose performance mostly consists of her rolling her eyes a lot and squeaking. No matter how distinguished the rest of the cast, or how well staged the various massed battle scenes, this is a problem which any film would struggle to overcome. Some other odd creative choices don't help much (Dustin Hoffman turns up as the embodiment of Joan's self-doubt). Still, there is a genuine sense of the medieval grotesque, and Besson is very much in his comfort zone during the battles. Certainly a brave and imaginative take on history, but the end result is too close to Monty Python and the Holy Grail for comfort.
So: Joan of Arc, an iconic, legendary, complex figure, is brought to the screen by Milla Jovovich, whose performance mostly consists of her rolling her eyes a lot and squeaking. No matter how distinguished the rest of the cast, or how well staged the various massed battle scenes, this is a problem which any film would struggle to overcome. Some other odd creative choices don't help much (Dustin Hoffman turns up as the embodiment of Joan's self-doubt). Still, there is a genuine sense of the medieval grotesque, and Besson is very much in his comfort zone during the battles. Certainly a brave and imaginative take on history, but the end result is too close to Monty Python and the Holy Grail for comfort.
Edgar Wright recommended The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972) in Movies (curated)
Jonathan Higgs recommended The Doughnut in Granny's Greenhouse by Bonzo Dog Doo/Dah Band in Music (curated)
Awix (3310 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jan 31, 2019
Adam McKay's attempt to reinvent himself as a sort of non-documentarian version of Michael Moore is not so much a hatchet-job as a machete-job - no, make that a chainsaw-job - on the reputation of Dick Cheney, Vice-Prez under Dubya. Christian Bale vanishes under layers of make-up and the Cheney who emerges is a disturbing, totally unprincipled monster, consumed by the acquisition and use of power, responsible for (amongst other things) the invasion of Iraq and the rise of ISIS. Potentially quite heavy stuff going on, then, but McKay takes care to cheer things up (relatively speaking) by including big performances from Sam Rockwell and Steve Carell, along with a few Monty Python ideas repurposed for this movie.
Highly entertaining in a ghastly sort of way, and illuminating with respect to the twisted logic employed by the Bush administration and the role they played in facilitating the current civic nightmare engulfing the USA. Unlikely to appeal to the Republican base, for obvious reasons, but the film inevitably has some jokes to make about its own liberal bias, too, as well as being smart enough to allow Cheney the chance to justify himself, which he does in a disturbingly persuasive way. Still probably a bit too partisan for its own good, but still very impressive and a lot of fun; thought-provoking too.
Highly entertaining in a ghastly sort of way, and illuminating with respect to the twisted logic employed by the Bush administration and the role they played in facilitating the current civic nightmare engulfing the USA. Unlikely to appeal to the Republican base, for obvious reasons, but the film inevitably has some jokes to make about its own liberal bias, too, as well as being smart enough to allow Cheney the chance to justify himself, which he does in a disturbingly persuasive way. Still probably a bit too partisan for its own good, but still very impressive and a lot of fun; thought-provoking too.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Fish Called Wanda (1988) in Movies
Jul 2, 2020
A Jolly Good Time
A member of my family mentioned when discussing the 1988 John Cleese comedy A FISH CALLED WANDA that you can tell much about a person over what part of this film that you like the most. Do you like:
a). The John Cleese/Jamie Lee Curtis love story
b). The "caper"
c). The beleaguered, unsuccessful hit-man Ken
d). The old lady and her 3 dogs
e). Kevin Kline as Otto
For me, that's easy - ALL OF IT! I find that A FISH CALLED WANDA is a very funny, richly acted comedy/caper that brings forth 4 characters that are easy to spend 2 hours with. Starting with John Cleese as Barrister Archie Leach. Cleese conceived, wrote, starred-in and (at times) directed this film and his "British humor" (honed from years as a member of the MONTY PYTHON comedy troupe) is in full force here. He has a reserved appearance about him that covers a wild man underneath yearning to break free.
Jamie Lee Curtis is quite good as the center of the film, Wanda Gershwitz, a cunning conman who will stop at nothing - and step over everyone - to get what she wants. I find that Curtis is under-rated as an actress and a comedienne and this picture shows that she can hold her own against 3 comedy greats at the top of their game.
The 2nd member of the Monty Python troupe to appear in this film is the remarkable Michael Palin as hapless hit-man, Ken. He becomes increasingly frustrated and frantic -and increasingly funny - as he attempts to complete his assignment throughout the course of this film.
But...the real star of this film...and the actor/character that steals the film away from everyone else...is Kevin Kline's Oscar winning performance as Otto, Wanda's erstwhile love who has a very high opinion of himself. It is rare that a comedic performance wins an Oscar - Kline's win is the the last one to do so - but it is easy to see why the Academy decided to reward Kline for it is a committed performance that is wild, wacky and over-the-top, but not overtly so. Kline has been very good in many other pictures/performances before and after this film, but he never reached the height that he reached in this film.
The film has veteran director Charles Crichton listed as Director with Cleese listed as co-Director (though Cleese insisted that Crichton did all the work and he only put his name on it to assuage the fears of studio executives over Crichton's advanced age). Well...Crichton does a wonderful job of letting the lunacy explode on the scene while keeping a lid on it and moving the action along at a brisk pace.
Wanda is one of those films that people remember fondly, but do not revisit. I would highly recommend you do, it's a jolly good time.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
a). The John Cleese/Jamie Lee Curtis love story
b). The "caper"
c). The beleaguered, unsuccessful hit-man Ken
d). The old lady and her 3 dogs
e). Kevin Kline as Otto
For me, that's easy - ALL OF IT! I find that A FISH CALLED WANDA is a very funny, richly acted comedy/caper that brings forth 4 characters that are easy to spend 2 hours with. Starting with John Cleese as Barrister Archie Leach. Cleese conceived, wrote, starred-in and (at times) directed this film and his "British humor" (honed from years as a member of the MONTY PYTHON comedy troupe) is in full force here. He has a reserved appearance about him that covers a wild man underneath yearning to break free.
Jamie Lee Curtis is quite good as the center of the film, Wanda Gershwitz, a cunning conman who will stop at nothing - and step over everyone - to get what she wants. I find that Curtis is under-rated as an actress and a comedienne and this picture shows that she can hold her own against 3 comedy greats at the top of their game.
The 2nd member of the Monty Python troupe to appear in this film is the remarkable Michael Palin as hapless hit-man, Ken. He becomes increasingly frustrated and frantic -and increasingly funny - as he attempts to complete his assignment throughout the course of this film.
But...the real star of this film...and the actor/character that steals the film away from everyone else...is Kevin Kline's Oscar winning performance as Otto, Wanda's erstwhile love who has a very high opinion of himself. It is rare that a comedic performance wins an Oscar - Kline's win is the the last one to do so - but it is easy to see why the Academy decided to reward Kline for it is a committed performance that is wild, wacky and over-the-top, but not overtly so. Kline has been very good in many other pictures/performances before and after this film, but he never reached the height that he reached in this film.
The film has veteran director Charles Crichton listed as Director with Cleese listed as co-Director (though Cleese insisted that Crichton did all the work and he only put his name on it to assuage the fears of studio executives over Crichton's advanced age). Well...Crichton does a wonderful job of letting the lunacy explode on the scene while keeping a lid on it and moving the action along at a brisk pace.
Wanda is one of those films that people remember fondly, but do not revisit. I would highly recommend you do, it's a jolly good time.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Awix (3310 KP) rated Peterloo (2018) in Movies
Nov 9, 2018 (Updated Nov 9, 2018)
Inescapably worthy costume drama sheds some light on a half-forgotten landmark in British political history, but in the process kind of comes across as Barry Lyndon as written by Jeremy Corbyn. Decent, heroic, possibly slightly naive reformers campaign to reform society; greedy and self-serving politicians, magistrates and businessmen unite to stop them; in the end the troops are sent in.
Not quite as punishingly didactic as it sounds, but this may not have been intentional: what may also have been an accident is how close the film frequently comes to being actually quite funny. There are some spectacular wigs and hats, startling accents, and very broad performances from most of the cast - it almost feels like a parody of a bad costume drama in places. There's a scene where a family of semi-literate mill-workers pause to discuss the economic effects of the Corn Laws in some detail, mostly for the audience's benefit, while another scene arguably recycles a Monty Python gag. Casting someone from Blackadder as the Prince Regent was probably a misstep, too.
Still, it all reeks with conviction and moral outrage, and in the end the Peterloo massacre itself is staged quite well - though I still think it could have been handled slightly more cinematically. This is the movie equivalent of someone who hands out the Socialist Worker in the street: the intentions are so laudable that you kind of feel obliged to indulge the earnest lack of self-awareness. Looks quite good too.
Not quite as punishingly didactic as it sounds, but this may not have been intentional: what may also have been an accident is how close the film frequently comes to being actually quite funny. There are some spectacular wigs and hats, startling accents, and very broad performances from most of the cast - it almost feels like a parody of a bad costume drama in places. There's a scene where a family of semi-literate mill-workers pause to discuss the economic effects of the Corn Laws in some detail, mostly for the audience's benefit, while another scene arguably recycles a Monty Python gag. Casting someone from Blackadder as the Prince Regent was probably a misstep, too.
Still, it all reeks with conviction and moral outrage, and in the end the Peterloo massacre itself is staged quite well - though I still think it could have been handled slightly more cinematically. This is the movie equivalent of someone who hands out the Socialist Worker in the street: the intentions are so laudable that you kind of feel obliged to indulge the earnest lack of self-awareness. Looks quite good too.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Darren (1599 KP) rated Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1983) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Story: The Meaning of Life is a series of different ideas of the meaning of life from point of views, we enter into different class, different religions and different careers. Each chapter connects to the previous which adds to the bigger point in the comedy behind just what is being poked fun at.
Thoughts on The Meaning of Life
Story – With this being a series of sketches it doesn’t make it difficult to talk about the story, we have so many different mini stories which are clearly put together to show the different stages of life, from birth to death as the search for the meaning of life is put together. Most of the sketches generally miss which end up feeling flat as they just don’t build up to the moment of comedy required, it has also ended up feeling very dated with the way it handles everything in a not so subtle manor.
Comedy – The comedy in this film is all about taste, if you are not a fan of the Monty Python team, you won’t enjoy the comedy through the film, bit like myself. If you are a fan you will get to laugh more.
Settings – The film takes us to multiply locations for each sketches, each will become clear for the message trying to be told.
Scene of the Movie – Catholic and Protestants
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Most of the comedy misses.
Final Thoughts – This is a sketch movie that tries to play through important moments in history and only feels too forced for anything to really be anything special.
Overall: Sketch show comedy.
Thoughts on The Meaning of Life
Story – With this being a series of sketches it doesn’t make it difficult to talk about the story, we have so many different mini stories which are clearly put together to show the different stages of life, from birth to death as the search for the meaning of life is put together. Most of the sketches generally miss which end up feeling flat as they just don’t build up to the moment of comedy required, it has also ended up feeling very dated with the way it handles everything in a not so subtle manor.
Comedy – The comedy in this film is all about taste, if you are not a fan of the Monty Python team, you won’t enjoy the comedy through the film, bit like myself. If you are a fan you will get to laugh more.
Settings – The film takes us to multiply locations for each sketches, each will become clear for the message trying to be told.
Scene of the Movie – Catholic and Protestants
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Most of the comedy misses.
Final Thoughts – This is a sketch movie that tries to play through important moments in history and only feels too forced for anything to really be anything special.
Overall: Sketch show comedy.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 1, 2019
Cracks Me Up
Growing up, I never really understood British humor. There is a bit of a bite to it, dry wit that I didn’t really get as a kid. The older I get, the more I appreciate and love it. Monty Python’s Life of Brian is a the perfect example of British humor at its finest. Set in 33 A.D., it follows the story of Brian Cohen who is mistaken for the Messiah and worshipped at every turn.
Acting: 10
One of the things I love about the Python movies is the fact that no character is restricted to one mere role. John Cleese, for example, is listed as a Wise Man, Centurion, and Official. Not only does he play three parts, but he is hilarious in every single role he owns. He has a way of trying to be serious but making you laugh anyway. Same thing with the likes of Terry Gilliam who plays Man Even Further Forward, Revolutionary, and Jailer to name just a handful of his roles. For all of the many hats the characters wear, they maintain a natural chemistry that makes their roles and timing perfect.
Beginning: 10
Hands-down, one of the best beginnings I’ve ever seen in a movie period. It’s a comedic spin on the birth of Jesus featuring the Three Wisemen showing up at the wrong manger. The scene sets up the entire film perfectly in all of its hilarity. By the time you’ve laughed through this, you’re ready to laugh more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 7
While Life of Brian is definitely a light-hearted affair, there is enough consistent conflict to keep the story moving. The story runs parallel to that of Jesus, right up to the crucifixion. Just like Jesus, Brian finds himself constantly in different bad situations, most of which he hasn’t prepared for. The film, of course, takes these situations, and makes each of them hilarious.
Genre: 8
A high-quality comedy that holds up even today. It makes you laugh from beginning to end and excels in originality. Definitely bordering along the lines of classic status.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 85
The misunderstanding of Brian as the savior is the key that makes the whole thing work. Monty Python’s Life of Brian works on a number of different levels and is sure to appeal to most, even Christians. If you have a sense of humor, that is.
Acting: 10
One of the things I love about the Python movies is the fact that no character is restricted to one mere role. John Cleese, for example, is listed as a Wise Man, Centurion, and Official. Not only does he play three parts, but he is hilarious in every single role he owns. He has a way of trying to be serious but making you laugh anyway. Same thing with the likes of Terry Gilliam who plays Man Even Further Forward, Revolutionary, and Jailer to name just a handful of his roles. For all of the many hats the characters wear, they maintain a natural chemistry that makes their roles and timing perfect.
Beginning: 10
Hands-down, one of the best beginnings I’ve ever seen in a movie period. It’s a comedic spin on the birth of Jesus featuring the Three Wisemen showing up at the wrong manger. The scene sets up the entire film perfectly in all of its hilarity. By the time you’ve laughed through this, you’re ready to laugh more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 7
While Life of Brian is definitely a light-hearted affair, there is enough consistent conflict to keep the story moving. The story runs parallel to that of Jesus, right up to the crucifixion. Just like Jesus, Brian finds himself constantly in different bad situations, most of which he hasn’t prepared for. The film, of course, takes these situations, and makes each of them hilarious.
Genre: 8
A high-quality comedy that holds up even today. It makes you laugh from beginning to end and excels in originality. Definitely bordering along the lines of classic status.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 8
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 85
The misunderstanding of Brian as the savior is the key that makes the whole thing work. Monty Python’s Life of Brian works on a number of different levels and is sure to appeal to most, even Christians. If you have a sense of humor, that is.
Ross (3282 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
May 9, 2018
Visually stunning (1 more)
Definite improvements over the book (more accessible references)
Decent story, improvements over the book
I personally found this an improvement over the book. The John Hughes film references have been totally toned down and replaced by much better known references, and the D&D and ancient video game references have been almost totally removed. For me this was an improvement but that is because I had no connection to those games/films/D&D from the book. I'm not sure if this was to make the film more accessible or to simply make it a better film (I don't fancy watching geeks acting out Monty Python sketches).
Some major changes to characters irked me a little though - I-R0k goes from being an annoying wannabe fan-boy to a mercenary (albeit played brilliantly by TJ Miller) and Aech is much less Halliday-obsessed than in the book (where he trades obscure facts back and forth with Parzival) and hasn't even seen the Shining.
The puzzle solving aspects mirrored the book - it starts off being everything and over time, the solving of the riddles becomes a minor plot point that is just mentioned rather than any exposition. And similarly to the book, there are red herrings, however clumsy and unintentional - Parzival only gets the quarter because of following the wrong lead, the same as in the book (which annoyed me then too).
The scene in the nightclub was a total waste of time and effort, though the CGI was incredible (but then that was the only point of the scene).
I am glad the 80s references were toned down quite a lot otherwise it would have been incredibly annoying. Similarly, the tasks and missions were made much more movie-friendly.
All in all, a very good film
Some major changes to characters irked me a little though - I-R0k goes from being an annoying wannabe fan-boy to a mercenary (albeit played brilliantly by TJ Miller) and Aech is much less Halliday-obsessed than in the book (where he trades obscure facts back and forth with Parzival) and hasn't even seen the Shining.
The puzzle solving aspects mirrored the book - it starts off being everything and over time, the solving of the riddles becomes a minor plot point that is just mentioned rather than any exposition. And similarly to the book, there are red herrings, however clumsy and unintentional - Parzival only gets the quarter because of following the wrong lead, the same as in the book (which annoyed me then too).
The scene in the nightclub was a total waste of time and effort, though the CGI was incredible (but then that was the only point of the scene).
I am glad the 80s references were toned down quite a lot otherwise it would have been incredibly annoying. Similarly, the tasks and missions were made much more movie-friendly.
All in all, a very good film