Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Casablanca (1942) in Movies
May 6, 2019
A Classic in Every Sense of the Word
"Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine."
"We'll always have Paris."
"Here's looking at you, kid."
"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
And many, many, many other iconic lines were featured in the brilliant 1942 all-time Classic CASABLANCA. Listed as "Warner Brothers Project #410", this film was supposed to be "just another film", but it turned out to be something more.
Starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains, CASABLANCA tells the story of refugees trying to flee Nazi controlled France (via Casablanca) in WWII. Amongst the denizens of Casablanca, there is Rick Blain, proprieter of Rick's Cafe American - a place where one can buy documents needed to escape, as well as escape - through a bottle.
Humphrey Bogart is perfectly cast as the jaded, "I stick my neck out for no one", Rick. He is cynical, corrupt, selfish...but he also has a heart of gold underneath it all. Bogie plays all of these layers - richly - at once, and was rewarded with an Academy Award nomination. He would lose to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE - a film I haven't seen, so can't judge as to the merits of his win. But...based on Bogart's performance...I'd say he was robbed.
Rick's "partner in crime' is Capt. Louis Renault of the Casablanca police. He is cheerfully and unapologetic-ally played by Claude Rains, who also was nominated (but didn't win) for his performance. These two play off each other brilliantly and the chemistry between these two is evident and I would have LOVED to see another film featuring these two fine performers. I'd say the chemistry between these two actors is a high point in this film, if it weren't for...
Ingrid Bergman as Ilse Lund - a past romance of Rick's. When Ilse and her husband, Viktor Laszlo enters Rick's seeking transit papers to flee the Nazi's, the instant spark and chemistry between Bogart and Bergman is palatable. You can feel the heat between the two of them through the screen and the longing and regret for "what could have been" is heartbreaking. If you were to show an example of "screen chemistry" the scenes between Bogart in Bergman in this film would be "Exhibit A".
Credit for all of this - and for keeping the plot machinations moving forward - is Warner Brothers "contract director" Michael Curtiz - one of the greatest Directors of "old Hollywood." His credits include the Errol Flynn ROBIN HOOD, James Cagney's Oscar turn as George M. Cohan in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY, CASABLANCA, the Bing Crosby/Danny Kaye WHITE CHRISTMAS and John Wayne in THE COMMANCHERO'S - all big budget, big expectations films that delivered the goods. Curtiz won the Oscar for his work in this film.
Assisting him are the two men who wrote so many memorable lines...twin brothers Julius and Phillip Epstein. They (deservedly) won an Oscar for their screenplay - the only set of Twins to win the Oscar.
The supporting cast - including Paul Henreid, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre - are exceptional as well, as are great scene after great scene - including the "Marseilles" scene and, of course, the fog covered airport scene at the end.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out. If you have NEVER seen it, I envy you the experience of seeing this wonderful black and white film for the first time. It is consistently listed as one of the top 5 films of all time - and earns that ranking. It truly is one of the greatest films - with some of the greatest performances - of all time.
Certainly, if you wanted just one example of Studio "Old Hollywood" movie making, this would be the one movie to watch.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"We'll always have Paris."
"Here's looking at you, kid."
"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
And many, many, many other iconic lines were featured in the brilliant 1942 all-time Classic CASABLANCA. Listed as "Warner Brothers Project #410", this film was supposed to be "just another film", but it turned out to be something more.
Starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains, CASABLANCA tells the story of refugees trying to flee Nazi controlled France (via Casablanca) in WWII. Amongst the denizens of Casablanca, there is Rick Blain, proprieter of Rick's Cafe American - a place where one can buy documents needed to escape, as well as escape - through a bottle.
Humphrey Bogart is perfectly cast as the jaded, "I stick my neck out for no one", Rick. He is cynical, corrupt, selfish...but he also has a heart of gold underneath it all. Bogie plays all of these layers - richly - at once, and was rewarded with an Academy Award nomination. He would lose to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE - a film I haven't seen, so can't judge as to the merits of his win. But...based on Bogart's performance...I'd say he was robbed.
Rick's "partner in crime' is Capt. Louis Renault of the Casablanca police. He is cheerfully and unapologetic-ally played by Claude Rains, who also was nominated (but didn't win) for his performance. These two play off each other brilliantly and the chemistry between these two is evident and I would have LOVED to see another film featuring these two fine performers. I'd say the chemistry between these two actors is a high point in this film, if it weren't for...
Ingrid Bergman as Ilse Lund - a past romance of Rick's. When Ilse and her husband, Viktor Laszlo enters Rick's seeking transit papers to flee the Nazi's, the instant spark and chemistry between Bogart and Bergman is palatable. You can feel the heat between the two of them through the screen and the longing and regret for "what could have been" is heartbreaking. If you were to show an example of "screen chemistry" the scenes between Bogart in Bergman in this film would be "Exhibit A".
Credit for all of this - and for keeping the plot machinations moving forward - is Warner Brothers "contract director" Michael Curtiz - one of the greatest Directors of "old Hollywood." His credits include the Errol Flynn ROBIN HOOD, James Cagney's Oscar turn as George M. Cohan in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY, CASABLANCA, the Bing Crosby/Danny Kaye WHITE CHRISTMAS and John Wayne in THE COMMANCHERO'S - all big budget, big expectations films that delivered the goods. Curtiz won the Oscar for his work in this film.
Assisting him are the two men who wrote so many memorable lines...twin brothers Julius and Phillip Epstein. They (deservedly) won an Oscar for their screenplay - the only set of Twins to win the Oscar.
The supporting cast - including Paul Henreid, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre - are exceptional as well, as are great scene after great scene - including the "Marseilles" scene and, of course, the fog covered airport scene at the end.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out. If you have NEVER seen it, I envy you the experience of seeing this wonderful black and white film for the first time. It is consistently listed as one of the top 5 films of all time - and earns that ranking. It truly is one of the greatest films - with some of the greatest performances - of all time.
Certainly, if you wanted just one example of Studio "Old Hollywood" movie making, this would be the one movie to watch.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hannibal Rising (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
After three books and films featuring the enigmatic and deadly Hannibal Lecter, author Thomas Harris has decided to lift the lid on the murky past of perhaps the most known killer in fiction.
In Hannibal Rising, Harris has crafted a screenplay that stays close to his 2006 book of the same name, and presents Hannibal as a sympathetic character driven to his fate due to circumstances beyond what any reasonable person should have to endure.
The film opens with young Hannibal in 1944 as the Lecter family flees their family castle from the advancing Nazi forces. When a series of bizarre circumstances leave Hannibal and his younger sister alone, they are easy victims to a band of scavengers who come upon them.
After a series of horrific situations, the film flashes forward 8 years where Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel), is now a ward of the Soviet State, and as a further insult, his former family castle is now the orphanage in which he lives.
Hannibal draws the wrath of the local bully as he refuses to sing the required nationalist songs, and generally only makes noise when he is screaming in his sleep due to his nightmares about his sister.
Despite his withdrawn nature, Hannibal is not against striking back at his tormentor and does so before fleeing the orphanage to France where he makes his way to the home of his Uncle.
Upon arrival, Hannibal learns that his Uncle has passed away, but is taken in and cared for by his Aunt (Gong Li). As time passes, the two form a bond, and Hannibal learns about martial arts from his Aunt as well as more about her Japanese heritage.
Despite the positive changes in his life, Hannibal is still haunted by his sister and is obsessed about finding the men who held them captive and exacting revenge.
Towards this end, Hannibal snaps and exacts a violent revenge upon a local merchant who disparages his aunt, which makes Hannibal known to the local police, especially Inspector Popil (Dominic West), who investigate suspected war criminals.
When a chance lead surfaces, Hannibal returns to his homeland and confronts one of his childhood captors. As he exacts his revenge, he also learns information about the locales of the others he seeks, and soon sets out of a series of revenge killings, all the while attempting to stay ahead of Inspector Popil and the authorities.
The film for the most part works, as it is engaging and does move at a solid pace during its nearly two-hour run time. Ulliel does a good job of capturing the manic and sophisticated duality of Lecter but does not have the eerie presence of Sir Anthony Hopkins who made Lecter into a household name and took home and Oscar for his portrayal.
To expect Ulliel to equal the performance of Hopkins would be unfair in my opinion, so suffice it to say, he carries the film well, and does as much justice to the part as could be expected.
The last part of the film does become a bit to pat for my taste as it seems as if the filmmakers did not have enough confidence with the pacing of the film to allow it to unfold the way the previous 90 minutes had. Instead we get some by the number action sequences and a final confrontation that seems lifted from dozens of other films.
While the finale may lack the tension that the film had been building towards, there are enough moments in the film to make it worth seeing if you are a fan of the series.
In Hannibal Rising, Harris has crafted a screenplay that stays close to his 2006 book of the same name, and presents Hannibal as a sympathetic character driven to his fate due to circumstances beyond what any reasonable person should have to endure.
The film opens with young Hannibal in 1944 as the Lecter family flees their family castle from the advancing Nazi forces. When a series of bizarre circumstances leave Hannibal and his younger sister alone, they are easy victims to a band of scavengers who come upon them.
After a series of horrific situations, the film flashes forward 8 years where Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel), is now a ward of the Soviet State, and as a further insult, his former family castle is now the orphanage in which he lives.
Hannibal draws the wrath of the local bully as he refuses to sing the required nationalist songs, and generally only makes noise when he is screaming in his sleep due to his nightmares about his sister.
Despite his withdrawn nature, Hannibal is not against striking back at his tormentor and does so before fleeing the orphanage to France where he makes his way to the home of his Uncle.
Upon arrival, Hannibal learns that his Uncle has passed away, but is taken in and cared for by his Aunt (Gong Li). As time passes, the two form a bond, and Hannibal learns about martial arts from his Aunt as well as more about her Japanese heritage.
Despite the positive changes in his life, Hannibal is still haunted by his sister and is obsessed about finding the men who held them captive and exacting revenge.
Towards this end, Hannibal snaps and exacts a violent revenge upon a local merchant who disparages his aunt, which makes Hannibal known to the local police, especially Inspector Popil (Dominic West), who investigate suspected war criminals.
When a chance lead surfaces, Hannibal returns to his homeland and confronts one of his childhood captors. As he exacts his revenge, he also learns information about the locales of the others he seeks, and soon sets out of a series of revenge killings, all the while attempting to stay ahead of Inspector Popil and the authorities.
The film for the most part works, as it is engaging and does move at a solid pace during its nearly two-hour run time. Ulliel does a good job of capturing the manic and sophisticated duality of Lecter but does not have the eerie presence of Sir Anthony Hopkins who made Lecter into a household name and took home and Oscar for his portrayal.
To expect Ulliel to equal the performance of Hopkins would be unfair in my opinion, so suffice it to say, he carries the film well, and does as much justice to the part as could be expected.
The last part of the film does become a bit to pat for my taste as it seems as if the filmmakers did not have enough confidence with the pacing of the film to allow it to unfold the way the previous 90 minutes had. Instead we get some by the number action sequences and a final confrontation that seems lifted from dozens of other films.
While the finale may lack the tension that the film had been building towards, there are enough moments in the film to make it worth seeing if you are a fan of the series.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Dec 17, 2019
During the opening credits of Jojo Rabbit, we're treated to The Beatles singing "I Want to Hold Your Hand" while documentary footage plays showing crowds of Germans going absolutely nuts for Hitler, sieg-heiling and cheering for him. It's a fairly good indication of the kind of humour you can expect from Jojo Rabbit and writer/director Taika Waititi, who hit the big time after directing 'Thor Ragnarok', but has previously been responsible for a wide range of brilliantly quirky movies such as 'What We Do in the Shadows' and 'Hunt for the Wilderpeople'.
We begin by meeting 10 year old German boy, Johannes 'Jojo' Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis), as he nervously prepares to head off to Nazi youth camp in order to fulfill his dream of serving Adolf Hitler. Heading up the camp is one-eyed Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell), aided by a bunch of inept instructors, including Fraulein Rahm (Rebel Wilson) and Finkel (Alfie Allen). At the camp, boys get to play with knives and hand grenades, girls are taught the importance of having babies (Fraulein Rahm has given birth to 18!), while all of the children are taught about the evil monsters that are the Jews. Accompanying Jojo at the camp are best friend Yorki (a brilliant Archie Yates, soon to be starring in the recently announced remake of Home Alone) and Jojo's imaginary friend Hitler (Taika Waititi). When Jojo refuses to wring the neck of rabbit during a lesson on killing (earning him the nickname Jojo Rabbit), and is hospitalised following an unfortunate incident with a grenade, he is forced to leave the camp behind, returning home to be with his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson).
While his mother is out during the day, Jojo discovers a teenage Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) hiding out in the wall-space of his sisters bedroom. Jojo is initially shocked, and repulsed, by this hideous Jew, even more so when he discovers that it was his mother who was responsible for hiding her. As time goes on though, Jojo and Elsa begin to form a friendship, with Elsa feeding Jojo a series of made up ridiculous stories and tales regarding the origins and ways of Jews so that Jojo can write a book about them. All the while, Rosie remains completely unaware that Jojo knows anything of Elsa. The bumbling, goofy Hitler occasionally shows up too when Jojo needs words of encouragement, or when times are tough, and provides us with some welcome light relief. More humour is provided in the form of various smaller characters, including gestapo member Stephen Merchant and his team during what is essentially a pretty serious and dramatic scene as they show up and ransack Jojo's house.
But Jojo Rabbit is a movie about relationships. The Jojo/Hitler dynamic begins to take a backseat as things start to get more serious and we focus more on the bond between Jojo and his mother, and the relationship between Jojo and Elsa, as the final months of the war play out. The child actors in Jojo Rabbit are all outstanding and we also get to see a wonderfully different side to Scarlett Johansson. Sam Rockwell is hilarious and Rebel Wilson is just, well, Rebel Wilson! Occasionally though, we are dealt an unexpected gut punch, and it's fair to say that you'll be crying at Jojo Rabbit just as much as you'll be laughing. If I'm honest, I really wasn't expecting that side to Jojo Rabbit and it did more for me and my enjoyment of the movie than the comedy did, which wasn't really as laugh out loud as I thought it would be. Overall though, Jojo Rabbit is simply wonderful - funny, heartbreaking, sad and poignant - and unlike anything you've ever seen before.
We begin by meeting 10 year old German boy, Johannes 'Jojo' Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis), as he nervously prepares to head off to Nazi youth camp in order to fulfill his dream of serving Adolf Hitler. Heading up the camp is one-eyed Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell), aided by a bunch of inept instructors, including Fraulein Rahm (Rebel Wilson) and Finkel (Alfie Allen). At the camp, boys get to play with knives and hand grenades, girls are taught the importance of having babies (Fraulein Rahm has given birth to 18!), while all of the children are taught about the evil monsters that are the Jews. Accompanying Jojo at the camp are best friend Yorki (a brilliant Archie Yates, soon to be starring in the recently announced remake of Home Alone) and Jojo's imaginary friend Hitler (Taika Waititi). When Jojo refuses to wring the neck of rabbit during a lesson on killing (earning him the nickname Jojo Rabbit), and is hospitalised following an unfortunate incident with a grenade, he is forced to leave the camp behind, returning home to be with his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson).
While his mother is out during the day, Jojo discovers a teenage Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) hiding out in the wall-space of his sisters bedroom. Jojo is initially shocked, and repulsed, by this hideous Jew, even more so when he discovers that it was his mother who was responsible for hiding her. As time goes on though, Jojo and Elsa begin to form a friendship, with Elsa feeding Jojo a series of made up ridiculous stories and tales regarding the origins and ways of Jews so that Jojo can write a book about them. All the while, Rosie remains completely unaware that Jojo knows anything of Elsa. The bumbling, goofy Hitler occasionally shows up too when Jojo needs words of encouragement, or when times are tough, and provides us with some welcome light relief. More humour is provided in the form of various smaller characters, including gestapo member Stephen Merchant and his team during what is essentially a pretty serious and dramatic scene as they show up and ransack Jojo's house.
But Jojo Rabbit is a movie about relationships. The Jojo/Hitler dynamic begins to take a backseat as things start to get more serious and we focus more on the bond between Jojo and his mother, and the relationship between Jojo and Elsa, as the final months of the war play out. The child actors in Jojo Rabbit are all outstanding and we also get to see a wonderfully different side to Scarlett Johansson. Sam Rockwell is hilarious and Rebel Wilson is just, well, Rebel Wilson! Occasionally though, we are dealt an unexpected gut punch, and it's fair to say that you'll be crying at Jojo Rabbit just as much as you'll be laughing. If I'm honest, I really wasn't expecting that side to Jojo Rabbit and it did more for me and my enjoyment of the movie than the comedy did, which wasn't really as laugh out loud as I thought it would be. Overall though, Jojo Rabbit is simply wonderful - funny, heartbreaking, sad and poignant - and unlike anything you've ever seen before.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Green Room (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
After a fruitless tour, a punk group, The Ain’t Rights, find themselves out of money and stealing gas to get back home. When a recommendation from a fan looking for an interview leads them to play one more show out in the backwoods of Oregon to a crowd of white supremacists, they become witnesses to a murder and barricade themselves in the green room. With no clear escape, they enter into a deadly battle of wills with the owner of the club, and his band of skinheads, and quickly discover that they have no intention of letting them leave alive.
It’s to the point now where if the A24 logo is at the front of a flick, chances are I’m handing over my hard-earned cash. Enemy, Locke, A Most Violent Year, Ex Machina, Slow West – they’ve been distributing some of my favorite films from the last few years and are fast becoming a powerhouse for indie movies, not unlike Focus Features a little more than a decade ago. Unfortunately, this means I set my expectations a little too high on my way into Green Room, which was not hard to do when you combine A24’s track record with the emerging talent of writer/director Jeremy Saulnier. Blue Ruin, his second feature, was the surprise indie hit of 2013. Expertly crafted and deliberately paced, it harkened back to 70’s-style bleak and gritty filmmaking. Green Room also features some of the DNA that made Blue Ruin great, those quite moments of high-tension leading into heart-stopping explosions of extreme violence are present and accounted for, but a thinner plot and characters who are severely underdeveloped show that this story, to its detriment, was in much more of a rush to get where it was going than its predecessor was.
Green Room’s major selling point is of course, Patrick Stewart. Adding one part Cameron Alexander (Stacy Keach’s character from American History X) to one part Walter White/Heisenberg, his performance will undoubtedly go down as one of the greatest departures of our time. Having said that, and believe me when I say I’m loathe to fly in the face of what an exceptional casting choice this was, he is frustratingly underutilized. It does speak to what an unrivaled talent he is when he can build most of his menace from the other side of a locked door, but regardless of how solid the performance is, his presence is merely a set-piece. A role with this little screen time rivals Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (they both had what probably amounted to about 15 minutes of screen time, or less), but I’m certain Stewart’s won’t leave as lasting an impression. To be blunt, if you’re queuing up just for him, you may come away disappointed.
The flip side to this comes about through Imogen Poots as Amber, friend to the murder victim and unfortunate enough to get trapped backstage with the band. Much of the best dialogue, along with some incredible moments of jaw-dropping spontaneity, comes her way and it’s her deadpan delivery that steals the show. Though we are supposed to root for the band, it was her cynical “inside man” that drew me further into their nightmare situation and kept me hoping that she might be the one to survive and give the skinheads the brutal justice they deserved.
For now, I’m sticking to my guns and giving Green Room just half marks, but I look forward to a second viewing at home in a few months, where I’m certain my opinion of it will improve, due to my expectations being more aligned and the foreknowledge that this is simple and standard survival horror fare…that just happens to feature Picard as a neo-Nazi.
It’s to the point now where if the A24 logo is at the front of a flick, chances are I’m handing over my hard-earned cash. Enemy, Locke, A Most Violent Year, Ex Machina, Slow West – they’ve been distributing some of my favorite films from the last few years and are fast becoming a powerhouse for indie movies, not unlike Focus Features a little more than a decade ago. Unfortunately, this means I set my expectations a little too high on my way into Green Room, which was not hard to do when you combine A24’s track record with the emerging talent of writer/director Jeremy Saulnier. Blue Ruin, his second feature, was the surprise indie hit of 2013. Expertly crafted and deliberately paced, it harkened back to 70’s-style bleak and gritty filmmaking. Green Room also features some of the DNA that made Blue Ruin great, those quite moments of high-tension leading into heart-stopping explosions of extreme violence are present and accounted for, but a thinner plot and characters who are severely underdeveloped show that this story, to its detriment, was in much more of a rush to get where it was going than its predecessor was.
Green Room’s major selling point is of course, Patrick Stewart. Adding one part Cameron Alexander (Stacy Keach’s character from American History X) to one part Walter White/Heisenberg, his performance will undoubtedly go down as one of the greatest departures of our time. Having said that, and believe me when I say I’m loathe to fly in the face of what an exceptional casting choice this was, he is frustratingly underutilized. It does speak to what an unrivaled talent he is when he can build most of his menace from the other side of a locked door, but regardless of how solid the performance is, his presence is merely a set-piece. A role with this little screen time rivals Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (they both had what probably amounted to about 15 minutes of screen time, or less), but I’m certain Stewart’s won’t leave as lasting an impression. To be blunt, if you’re queuing up just for him, you may come away disappointed.
The flip side to this comes about through Imogen Poots as Amber, friend to the murder victim and unfortunate enough to get trapped backstage with the band. Much of the best dialogue, along with some incredible moments of jaw-dropping spontaneity, comes her way and it’s her deadpan delivery that steals the show. Though we are supposed to root for the band, it was her cynical “inside man” that drew me further into their nightmare situation and kept me hoping that she might be the one to survive and give the skinheads the brutal justice they deserved.
For now, I’m sticking to my guns and giving Green Room just half marks, but I look forward to a second viewing at home in a few months, where I’m certain my opinion of it will improve, due to my expectations being more aligned and the foreknowledge that this is simple and standard survival horror fare…that just happens to feature Picard as a neo-Nazi.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Black Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Jude Law stars as Robinson, a former submarine captain made redundant after a long career with an underwater salvage company. Left without a pension, and blaming the company for his failed marriage, he learns from a former co-worker that a vast sum of Nazi gold is lying in wait aboard a sunken German U-boat at the bottom of the Black Sea. Upon securing financing and a submarine that has most definitely seen better days, he pulls together a crew of both British and Russian sailors, assuring every man that an equal share of the loot is to be had. Tensions among the crew soon arise and as one character chillingly questions, “What happens when one of them starts to figure out that their share gets bigger, when there is less people to share it with?”
A few too many easy coincidences drive this plot along, but if you’re willing to suspend just a bit of disbelief, there’s a great tale of paranoia, claustrophobia, betrayal and greed beneath the surface. Even through Jude Law’s dodgy Scottish accent, every performance (particularly newcomer Bobby Schofield as the inexperienced Tobin) is top-notch as both he and the supporting cast provide true believability to the disregard and distrust the two groups of men come to have for each other. Between Black Sea and his unexpectedly good turn in Dom Hemingway last year, Jude Law is firmly back on my radar, as he seems to be following in Matthew McConaughey’s footsteps by taking darker, more complex and challenging roles at this point in his career. From playing a father-figure for a boy frightened of what the future holds, to a man possessed of the determination, no matter what the cost, to return home rich, Law hits every note right and is more than capable of leading a cast this talented.
My only substantial complaint is the ending. On leaving the theater, it seemed one of the better solutions to the potential corner the filmmakers were painting themselves into, though the longer its sits, the more I think a film of this unrelenting intensity deserves an ending with some poignancy. Admittedly, I would have found something bleaker to be more satisfying. The easy route out taken in the last five minutes by director Kevin Macdonald and writer Dennis Kelly are a bit of a let-down when compared with the pulse pounding hour and forty-five minutes that precedes it, and for me it will only detract from Black Sea’s memorability.
With the mention of a submarine drama, it is almost inevitable that comparisons to Das Boot will be drawn. For the purposes of reviewing Black Sea however, I have been unable to do so as my only viewing of it was about a decade ago, when I very foolishly had the ambition to see not only the uncut 6-hour mini-series version that was put together for German television, but to do so in a single sitting. I was successful, but only in terms of completing the task. I know it was great and that it is above equal in the genre of submarine films, but at this point I’d be hard pressed to recall even a few minutes of it. It would seem, in this case, that Black Sea got a fair shake to be judged on its own merits (and that I now have a German epic to revisit, albeit in the slightly more truncated director’s cut form this time).
A few nitpicky complaints aside, and in direct contradiction with my take on the abysmally poor Blackhat from the other week, this is a fine example of a well-made, wall-to-wall suspense-filled thriller, and the film I wish I had started the year off with. Released in early December in the UK, where it has received generally positive reviews, it’s unfortunate that it has landed stateside in the January/February season of no-hopes.
A few too many easy coincidences drive this plot along, but if you’re willing to suspend just a bit of disbelief, there’s a great tale of paranoia, claustrophobia, betrayal and greed beneath the surface. Even through Jude Law’s dodgy Scottish accent, every performance (particularly newcomer Bobby Schofield as the inexperienced Tobin) is top-notch as both he and the supporting cast provide true believability to the disregard and distrust the two groups of men come to have for each other. Between Black Sea and his unexpectedly good turn in Dom Hemingway last year, Jude Law is firmly back on my radar, as he seems to be following in Matthew McConaughey’s footsteps by taking darker, more complex and challenging roles at this point in his career. From playing a father-figure for a boy frightened of what the future holds, to a man possessed of the determination, no matter what the cost, to return home rich, Law hits every note right and is more than capable of leading a cast this talented.
My only substantial complaint is the ending. On leaving the theater, it seemed one of the better solutions to the potential corner the filmmakers were painting themselves into, though the longer its sits, the more I think a film of this unrelenting intensity deserves an ending with some poignancy. Admittedly, I would have found something bleaker to be more satisfying. The easy route out taken in the last five minutes by director Kevin Macdonald and writer Dennis Kelly are a bit of a let-down when compared with the pulse pounding hour and forty-five minutes that precedes it, and for me it will only detract from Black Sea’s memorability.
With the mention of a submarine drama, it is almost inevitable that comparisons to Das Boot will be drawn. For the purposes of reviewing Black Sea however, I have been unable to do so as my only viewing of it was about a decade ago, when I very foolishly had the ambition to see not only the uncut 6-hour mini-series version that was put together for German television, but to do so in a single sitting. I was successful, but only in terms of completing the task. I know it was great and that it is above equal in the genre of submarine films, but at this point I’d be hard pressed to recall even a few minutes of it. It would seem, in this case, that Black Sea got a fair shake to be judged on its own merits (and that I now have a German epic to revisit, albeit in the slightly more truncated director’s cut form this time).
A few nitpicky complaints aside, and in direct contradiction with my take on the abysmally poor Blackhat from the other week, this is a fine example of a well-made, wall-to-wall suspense-filled thriller, and the film I wish I had started the year off with. Released in early December in the UK, where it has received generally positive reviews, it’s unfortunate that it has landed stateside in the January/February season of no-hopes.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
In May 1940, as Germany advanced into France, Allied troops found themselves surrounded at the town of Dunkirk with little time to escape. In the distance, the Germans sought to capture or kill each of the nearly 400,000 men. French and British soldiers began the slow process to evacuate using every naval or civilian ship available. Dunkirk examines the heroism involved by everyone on the land, sea, and air in their attempt to get their countrymen home.
When we discuss, reflect, or are taught about World War II, we often think the turning points of the war as the Battle of the Bulge, Leningrad, Midway, or D-Day. In doing this, we overlook moments like Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan exposes how vital this moment was in determining the fate, not only of the war, but the world in Dunkirk.
It is hard to describe what the film is like just from the visuals. It captures you and surrounds you by making the audience feel as though they are witnessing these events from a third-person perspective, as well as, through the eyes of those involved. The film itself is not limited to just the war or a discussion of the circumstances that led up to the war itself. There are no major battles shown, however, the film demonstrates quite vividly the horrors of war, the confusion, the chaos, the brutality, and the fear that each moment might be your last.
Dunkirk, masterfully tells the story of those involved in the evacuation of those troops that found themselves being pursued by Nazi Germany. Each frame will have audiences fearing for the safety of the men on the screen and hoping that they will somehow make it home despite all indications that their fate is sealed. Nolan gives audiences the opportunity to see the events in a multilayered way so that we can understand all of the moving parts involved in this massive undertaking. It renews the appreciation that many of us have for those who fought in World War II and offers a new sense of appreciation for younger generations who are far removed from those events. Most impressive about the film is its ability to be more historically accurate in displaying the different people who actually were fighting. It is not, like Saving Private Ryan, a film that exaggerates American participation in the war to make it look as though the only people fighting were Americans and Nazis. Dunkirk shows how the French, British, and Belgians, of various colors and backgrounds were fighting well before summer of 1944.
The film also pulls of quite an ambitious task by removing the Nazis from the film. This is not to say that there is no German presence in the film, rather, they minimize the focus on the Nazis in order to keep the focus on those evacuating and those involved in assisting with the efforts. In my viewing, I felt that this strengthened the film in adding to the fear by having a faceless enemy, one that could be lurking around the corner or coming around the corner at any moment. This added to the tension to make audiences feel the fear that so many of these young men must have had as they waited to board their ships to get home.
Dunkirk is impressive, emotional, and full of tension. It raises the bar with respect to how historically-based films should be in the representation of events. It does not rely on one linear story to capture the audience. It is an intelligent and overdue homage to the men and women who did all they could to ensure that these men made it home.
When we discuss, reflect, or are taught about World War II, we often think the turning points of the war as the Battle of the Bulge, Leningrad, Midway, or D-Day. In doing this, we overlook moments like Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan exposes how vital this moment was in determining the fate, not only of the war, but the world in Dunkirk.
It is hard to describe what the film is like just from the visuals. It captures you and surrounds you by making the audience feel as though they are witnessing these events from a third-person perspective, as well as, through the eyes of those involved. The film itself is not limited to just the war or a discussion of the circumstances that led up to the war itself. There are no major battles shown, however, the film demonstrates quite vividly the horrors of war, the confusion, the chaos, the brutality, and the fear that each moment might be your last.
Dunkirk, masterfully tells the story of those involved in the evacuation of those troops that found themselves being pursued by Nazi Germany. Each frame will have audiences fearing for the safety of the men on the screen and hoping that they will somehow make it home despite all indications that their fate is sealed. Nolan gives audiences the opportunity to see the events in a multilayered way so that we can understand all of the moving parts involved in this massive undertaking. It renews the appreciation that many of us have for those who fought in World War II and offers a new sense of appreciation for younger generations who are far removed from those events. Most impressive about the film is its ability to be more historically accurate in displaying the different people who actually were fighting. It is not, like Saving Private Ryan, a film that exaggerates American participation in the war to make it look as though the only people fighting were Americans and Nazis. Dunkirk shows how the French, British, and Belgians, of various colors and backgrounds were fighting well before summer of 1944.
The film also pulls of quite an ambitious task by removing the Nazis from the film. This is not to say that there is no German presence in the film, rather, they minimize the focus on the Nazis in order to keep the focus on those evacuating and those involved in assisting with the efforts. In my viewing, I felt that this strengthened the film in adding to the fear by having a faceless enemy, one that could be lurking around the corner or coming around the corner at any moment. This added to the tension to make audiences feel the fear that so many of these young men must have had as they waited to board their ships to get home.
Dunkirk is impressive, emotional, and full of tension. It raises the bar with respect to how historically-based films should be in the representation of events. It does not rely on one linear story to capture the audience. It is an intelligent and overdue homage to the men and women who did all they could to ensure that these men made it home.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated A Thousand Pieces of You (Firebird, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<i>A Thousand Pieces of You</i> was an absolute pain in the butt to listen to – that's probably an exaggeration.
The book is one of those novels that needs quite a bit of scientific background for you to fully grasp the entire meaning behind it. There is just <i>so</i> much physics and scientific varbage just purely explaining the concept parallel universes, dimension traveling, and the like throughout the first fifth of the book that I, a high school girl who only finished Chemistry, can only get a teeny grasp on because I was bored enough to do some research on the existence of parallel universes years ago. Still, I was as absolutely confused as a newborn baby.
But back then, I was in middle school. My curiosity might have been insatiable (it still is... in a way) and it annoyed the noodles out of my parents. Well, my mother was annoyed and wondered if I got switched at birth. Congrats, mom. You got a grammar Nazi and not a walking calculator. How does it feel to have someone younger than you correcting your grammar?
Still, getting bombarded with physics varbage isn't exactly my thing – my mind went from, "Whoa, this is cool!" to "Wait... why do I think this is cool again?" to "What is this? Physics class? I'M NOT DONE WITH CHEMISTRY YET." to "I don't understand. I'm reading this, absorbing this, digesting this, but I can't understand or comprehend or grasp this fully."
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/06/TookMySkull.gif"; width="320" height="180" border="0" /></div>
The whole varbage thing might have been helpful with the world building and better understanding of how the whole dimension traveling worked – if you know enough science. No offense, but I swear, tPhone is the most ridiculous creation ever – a complete carbon copy of the iPhone with a different letter replacing the "i." The Triad here is quite literally the Apple of this book – I'm not too impressed.
There is also A LOT of flashbacks to Marguerite's life – helpful in learning about Marguerite, her family, Theo, Paul, and all the other characters, but only a few were actually helpful later on in the story. The whole physics varbage and the flashbacks felt like a conversation I would be having with a long time friend visiting after many years, or a potential class reunion ten years after I graduate and Lupe talks about this hair salon she opened in Mexico and Rundus talks about a gruesomely bloody game he programmed recently while finally keeping his fingers to himself unless he wants his girlfriend/fiancée/wife to go after my head in envy.
<i>A Thousand Pieces of You</i> was just that – a story told many years after it happened and the characters look back and reflect on themselves, possibly laughing at how stupid they might have acted. At the romantic notions they each had of each other – Marguerite thinking about never having a chance with Paul or Theo, Theo thinking about maybe he <i>does</i> have a chance with Marguerite, and Paul thinking he has no chance with Marguerite whatsoever. At how reckless Marguerite was with her thinking – jumping the gun and going after Paul right from the start, because one of the first things I hear is, "Kill Paul Markov." Whoa, gruesome much?
Then I get thrust into a flurry of confusion where Marguerite's emotions are on high tide and a dumpster of information is quite literally dumped upon my ears from the very next chapter about how this whole dimension travel works here, among other things.
While I enjoyed the whole "story around a fire" vibe, I feel like I would have enjoyed this so much better and grasped this so much more fully if I took a physics class before reading this.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/audiobook-review-a-thousand-pieces-of-you-by-claudia-gray/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
The book is one of those novels that needs quite a bit of scientific background for you to fully grasp the entire meaning behind it. There is just <i>so</i> much physics and scientific varbage just purely explaining the concept parallel universes, dimension traveling, and the like throughout the first fifth of the book that I, a high school girl who only finished Chemistry, can only get a teeny grasp on because I was bored enough to do some research on the existence of parallel universes years ago. Still, I was as absolutely confused as a newborn baby.
But back then, I was in middle school. My curiosity might have been insatiable (it still is... in a way) and it annoyed the noodles out of my parents. Well, my mother was annoyed and wondered if I got switched at birth. Congrats, mom. You got a grammar Nazi and not a walking calculator. How does it feel to have someone younger than you correcting your grammar?
Still, getting bombarded with physics varbage isn't exactly my thing – my mind went from, "Whoa, this is cool!" to "Wait... why do I think this is cool again?" to "What is this? Physics class? I'M NOT DONE WITH CHEMISTRY YET." to "I don't understand. I'm reading this, absorbing this, digesting this, but I can't understand or comprehend or grasp this fully."
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img src="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.bookblog.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/317/2015/06/TookMySkull.gif"; width="320" height="180" border="0" /></div>
The whole varbage thing might have been helpful with the world building and better understanding of how the whole dimension traveling worked – if you know enough science. No offense, but I swear, tPhone is the most ridiculous creation ever – a complete carbon copy of the iPhone with a different letter replacing the "i." The Triad here is quite literally the Apple of this book – I'm not too impressed.
There is also A LOT of flashbacks to Marguerite's life – helpful in learning about Marguerite, her family, Theo, Paul, and all the other characters, but only a few were actually helpful later on in the story. The whole physics varbage and the flashbacks felt like a conversation I would be having with a long time friend visiting after many years, or a potential class reunion ten years after I graduate and Lupe talks about this hair salon she opened in Mexico and Rundus talks about a gruesomely bloody game he programmed recently while finally keeping his fingers to himself unless he wants his girlfriend/fiancée/wife to go after my head in envy.
<i>A Thousand Pieces of You</i> was just that – a story told many years after it happened and the characters look back and reflect on themselves, possibly laughing at how stupid they might have acted. At the romantic notions they each had of each other – Marguerite thinking about never having a chance with Paul or Theo, Theo thinking about maybe he <i>does</i> have a chance with Marguerite, and Paul thinking he has no chance with Marguerite whatsoever. At how reckless Marguerite was with her thinking – jumping the gun and going after Paul right from the start, because one of the first things I hear is, "Kill Paul Markov." Whoa, gruesome much?
Then I get thrust into a flurry of confusion where Marguerite's emotions are on high tide and a dumpster of information is quite literally dumped upon my ears from the very next chapter about how this whole dimension travel works here, among other things.
While I enjoyed the whole "story around a fire" vibe, I feel like I would have enjoyed this so much better and grasped this so much more fully if I took a physics class before reading this.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/audiobook-review-a-thousand-pieces-of-you-by-claudia-gray/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Star power from Johnson and Blunt (1 more)
Direction, cinematography, special effects and score all top notch
An Amazon-based blockbuster that delivers!
Dating from 1955, Jungle Cruise was one of the key attractions at Disneyland when it first opened. Full of corny spiel from the lovable boat captains, the experience is nicely evoked in the new Disney movie: a true summer blockbuster that delights.
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Another favourite from the awards season that came with some strong acclaim from amongst friends and trusted reviewers, WWII satire Jojo Rabbit, from the likeable and unique mind of Taika Waititi, was always high on my list as a must see movie.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.