Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A “Good Guy” meting out justice in a bad way.
There’s something really satisfying about seeing our ‘hero’ Robert McCall giving bad ‘uns a bloody nose (and far worse) as immediate punishment for a crime committed. My parent’s pre-war generation would wax lyrical about the days when police officers or teachers could give a kid a “good box around the ears” as a lesson for a minor infringement. (“Ah, the good old days…. That’ll learn ‘im”!). But equally there’s also the queasy feeling here that this is a vigilante being judge, jury and executioner. Thank GOODNESS then that it’s Denzel Washington and he’s OBVIOUSLY a good guy that will never get it wrong!
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated American Made (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Cruise Flying High Again.
If you ask anyone to list the top 10 film actors, chance is that “Tom Cruise” would make many people’s lists. He’s in everything isn’t he? Well, actually, no. Looking at his imdb history, he’s only averaged just over a movie per year for several years. I guess he’s just traditionally made a big impact with the films he’s done. This all rather changed in the last year with his offerings of the rather lacklustre “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” (FFF) and the pretty dreadful “The Mummy” (Ff) as one of this summer’s big blockbuster disappointments. So Thomas Cruise Mapother IV was sorely in need of a upward turn and fortunately “American Made” delivers in spades.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
EmersonRose (320 KP) rated The Eye of the World (Wheel of Time, #1) in Books
Nov 20, 2019
“As the Wheel of Time turns, places wear many names. Men wear many names, many faces. Different faces, but always the same man. Yet no one knows the Great Pattern the Wheel weaves, or even the Pattern of an Age. We can only watch, and study, and hope.”
― Robert Jordan, The Eye of the World
There is perhaps nothing more magical than finding yourself fully immersed in a story. The first book in The Wheel of Time series, The Eye of the World, creates a full world of places, histories, species, religions, and myths. Robert Jordan first introduces you to the simple town of Emonds Field and the characters that live there. Then he takes us with those characters to explore a vast and more complex world. We are taken on a journey through different cities and meet a variety of people including meeting strange creatures and beings with strange, magical powers. Including Trollocs, Aes Sedai, Warders, and Myddraal. Jordan has an extraordinary ability to create intriguing mythologies for his world and creating species that have fully formed cultures and politics.
But before I get too far ahead of myself let us start with Robert Jordan. He is an American 31ulybtb-yl-_ux250_author from South Carolina, whose real name is James Oliver Rigney, JR. He lived from 1948 to 2007. He wrote books in many genres including fantasy, historical fiction, western and dance criticism each under a different pen name. The first book in his The Wheel of Time series was published in 1990. He was able to finish eleven books in the series before he passed, leaving his extensive notes to renowned novelist Brandon Sanderson who wrote the last three books of the series, finishing in 2013.
Personally, when reading a book, the most important thing for me is to become invested in at least one of the characters. Once I am, I’m completely dedicated to the book. Robert Jordan has a large group of main characters and switches perspective between them throughout their journey. Picking out a single main character is very difficult, Rand al’Thor might be the closest but Matrim (Mat) Cauthon and Perrin Aybara and possibly Egwene al’vere and Nynaeve al’Meara create the central cast. They are the natives of Emonds Field before their adventures take them journeying to places unknown. Each of them is special and through the course of the book, you uncover the power each has. What is amazing is how Jordan is able to make you care deeply for each character and while he is switching perspective you never find yourself, bored. This is impressive for often in novels that switch perspective there is that one storyline you do not care about. Upon finishing the first book I can honestly say that I do not have a single favorite out of the group but love them all and care about what will happen to them next.
My one issue with the book came with frustration at what I call Tolkien Naming Syndrome. With such a mass of characters it is not surprising that some names start to sound similar but like Arwen and Eowyn there are two females with feelings for one of the boys whose names are oddly similar Elayne and Egwene with other female names rhyming such as Moiraine and Morgase while the male names tend to sound different and are thus easier to keep apart and remember. Depending on what you want in a story, the other thing that keeps this book from being unique is the black and white stance on good vs. evil. The two sides are clear and do not leave much room for the morally grey.
The book offers a great mix of solved mysteries while leaving you with an abundance of questions to make you need to continue reading the story. It truly is an epic adventure story. Fulfilling the good vs. evil battling and grand adventures and meeting strange creatures and discovering new magic. While it might not have the grand battles of Lord of the Rings it has the magical journey and strange adventures that create the amazing epic fantasy novel. I plan on reading the next book soon and highly recommend this book to fantasy readers as it offers great characters, an amazing world and interesting rules on magic.
― Robert Jordan, The Eye of the World
There is perhaps nothing more magical than finding yourself fully immersed in a story. The first book in The Wheel of Time series, The Eye of the World, creates a full world of places, histories, species, religions, and myths. Robert Jordan first introduces you to the simple town of Emonds Field and the characters that live there. Then he takes us with those characters to explore a vast and more complex world. We are taken on a journey through different cities and meet a variety of people including meeting strange creatures and beings with strange, magical powers. Including Trollocs, Aes Sedai, Warders, and Myddraal. Jordan has an extraordinary ability to create intriguing mythologies for his world and creating species that have fully formed cultures and politics.
But before I get too far ahead of myself let us start with Robert Jordan. He is an American 31ulybtb-yl-_ux250_author from South Carolina, whose real name is James Oliver Rigney, JR. He lived from 1948 to 2007. He wrote books in many genres including fantasy, historical fiction, western and dance criticism each under a different pen name. The first book in his The Wheel of Time series was published in 1990. He was able to finish eleven books in the series before he passed, leaving his extensive notes to renowned novelist Brandon Sanderson who wrote the last three books of the series, finishing in 2013.
Personally, when reading a book, the most important thing for me is to become invested in at least one of the characters. Once I am, I’m completely dedicated to the book. Robert Jordan has a large group of main characters and switches perspective between them throughout their journey. Picking out a single main character is very difficult, Rand al’Thor might be the closest but Matrim (Mat) Cauthon and Perrin Aybara and possibly Egwene al’vere and Nynaeve al’Meara create the central cast. They are the natives of Emonds Field before their adventures take them journeying to places unknown. Each of them is special and through the course of the book, you uncover the power each has. What is amazing is how Jordan is able to make you care deeply for each character and while he is switching perspective you never find yourself, bored. This is impressive for often in novels that switch perspective there is that one storyline you do not care about. Upon finishing the first book I can honestly say that I do not have a single favorite out of the group but love them all and care about what will happen to them next.
My one issue with the book came with frustration at what I call Tolkien Naming Syndrome. With such a mass of characters it is not surprising that some names start to sound similar but like Arwen and Eowyn there are two females with feelings for one of the boys whose names are oddly similar Elayne and Egwene with other female names rhyming such as Moiraine and Morgase while the male names tend to sound different and are thus easier to keep apart and remember. Depending on what you want in a story, the other thing that keeps this book from being unique is the black and white stance on good vs. evil. The two sides are clear and do not leave much room for the morally grey.
The book offers a great mix of solved mysteries while leaving you with an abundance of questions to make you need to continue reading the story. It truly is an epic adventure story. Fulfilling the good vs. evil battling and grand adventures and meeting strange creatures and discovering new magic. While it might not have the grand battles of Lord of the Rings it has the magical journey and strange adventures that create the amazing epic fantasy novel. I plan on reading the next book soon and highly recommend this book to fantasy readers as it offers great characters, an amazing world and interesting rules on magic.
Cooking Games Paradise Chef - Burger Food Maker
Food & Drink and Games
App
Cooking Games Paradise Food Maker & Burger Chef - Cook and serve tasty food recipes & learn how to...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In God, and Doss, we Trust.
Those dreaded words – “Based On A True Story” – emerge again from the blackness of the opening page. Actually, no. In a move that could be considered arrogant if it wasn’t so well researched, here we even lose the first two words.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
It seems recently that the Disney vault has exploded with the release of several of their classic animated films being remade. Unfortunately, the classics that have inspired these remakes have been redone with mixed results. The original The Lion King was released back in 1994 and it’s hard to believe that I was a junior in college when I saw it. Since that time, we’ve seen various iterations of the classic story, a few direct to VCR sequels and the awe-inspiring Broadway stage production (which if you are a serious fan of the movie I encourage you to see). It seems odd to discuss the plot of a movie that I’m certain everyone reading this has seen at least once (or a dozen times over). To the uninformed however, The Lion King is about a young cub named Simba (JD McCrary as the young voice and Donald Glover as the adult) who suffers the tragic loss of his father Mufasa (James Earl Jones) at the paws of his evil uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Scar convinces Simba that he is responsible for his father’s death and that he must leave the pride and never return. With the help of his faithful friends Timon (Billy Eichner), the lovable warthog Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), the ever wise Zazu (John Oliver) and his budding queen Nala (Beyoncé’) he learns that true courage comes from within and realizes he must face Scar if he is ever to bring peace back to the Pride Lands.
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Lars and the Real Girl (2007) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Writer Nancy Oliver (Six Feet Under, True Blood) wrote the script for Lars and the Real Girl in 2002 after stumbling onto the website RealDoll.com. Directed by Craig Gillespie (the 2011 Fright Night remake, I, Tonya), Lars and the Real Girl is a much more tender and thoughtful comedic drama than you may be expecting. Ryan Gosling portrays Lars Lindstrom; a socially awkward yet decent guy. His brother, Gus (Paul Schneider, The Flowers of War), and his wife, Karen (Emily Mortimer, Transsiberian), worry about him since he spends so much time alone.
Lars not only has a shy and stand-offish demeanor he also tends to avoid people and social interactions altogether. If a woman happens to speak to him, Lars is incapable of responding. Physical contact from anyone seems to physically hurt Lars, but that doesn’t stop his friends and family from encouraging him to get a girlfriend. One fateful day, Lars is shown a peculiar website by a co-worker that sells love dolls. Although Lars is reluctant at first, he eventually warms up to the idea of a love doll as his companion. Bianca soon becomes an especially important part of Lars’ life and her presence not only changes Lars, but the town that he lives in for the better.
It took nearly a year to finally see Lars and the Real Girl after its theatrical release; a statistic that seems like a luxury ten years later when seeing and promoting new releases seems to lose steam after its opening weekend. The concept for Lars and the Real Girl is a strange one. A sex doll tagging along with an extreme introvert doesn’t sound all that appealing at first, but Lars is easy to understand as a character especially if you’re an introvert yourself or have had trouble with the opposite sex at some point in your life. Dating was always this massive hurdle that only seemed to expand and grow with each failed first date or cancellation. With those experiences and that mentality where you find yourself retreating into your own constructed sanctuary, Lars is strangely easy to relate to.
It’s not that Ryan Gosling hasn’t been a part of big budget films, but Lars and the Real Girl was released at a time in his career when he was catering more towards the independent side of things. This is pre-Drive yet post-Notebook Ryan Gosling here; films like Half Nelson and Blue Valentine solidified how talented Gosling is as an actor without all the bells and whistles of a huge cast or blockbuster film. Lars and the Real Girl is the film that made a lot of people realize that Gosling was more than a teenage heartthrob and former Mouseketeer.
Gosling fits the Lars Lindstrom role perfectly as he’s capable of portraying quirks that are as awkward as they are charming. How he’s able to talk to a doll for over an hour and not only make it believable, but also entertaining is incredibly impressive. Part of that is attributed to Bianca being treated like an actual person with her own trailer, getting dressed in private, and only being on set when she was in the scene, but Gosling also contributed quite a bit as well. Gosling improvised the CPR on Margo’s teddy bear sequence and the scene before he and Bianca enter the party.
The film fits that independent film mold a bit too well as it has humor that’s funny but not laugh out loud funny and is dramatic and heartfelt enough to make you invested in something you likely never would without the context of the film. The film shares elements from films like Her, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and Lost in Translation; that sensation of being lost in what is considered to be normal society but finding something unorthodox that makes you belong and feel comfortable and whole. There’s this overwhelming sense of charm and sentimentality that can only be found in films like this.
Lars and the Real Girl is a comedic drama that relies on awkward situations or even one rare occurrence that triggers unusual peculiarities as it focuses on people’s reactions to these situations that occur. It’s worth seeing if you’ve ever felt like an outcast and to witness Lars’ odd behavior and the snowball effect that it causes. Introverts will likely enjoy it more than the average film lover, but Lars and the Real Girl takes something that seems taboo on the surface and molds it into this genuine motion picture experience that is strangely beautiful.
Lars and the Real Girl is currently available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Google Play, and Vudu for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. It’s also available to stream for free on Amazon Prime if you have Starz with Prime Video channels. The DVD is $8.51 and the Multi-Format Blu-ray is $7.68 on Amazon. On eBay, the DVD is $7.98 and the Blu-ray is $7.95 (or best offer) while both are in brand new condition and both have free shipping.
Lars not only has a shy and stand-offish demeanor he also tends to avoid people and social interactions altogether. If a woman happens to speak to him, Lars is incapable of responding. Physical contact from anyone seems to physically hurt Lars, but that doesn’t stop his friends and family from encouraging him to get a girlfriend. One fateful day, Lars is shown a peculiar website by a co-worker that sells love dolls. Although Lars is reluctant at first, he eventually warms up to the idea of a love doll as his companion. Bianca soon becomes an especially important part of Lars’ life and her presence not only changes Lars, but the town that he lives in for the better.
It took nearly a year to finally see Lars and the Real Girl after its theatrical release; a statistic that seems like a luxury ten years later when seeing and promoting new releases seems to lose steam after its opening weekend. The concept for Lars and the Real Girl is a strange one. A sex doll tagging along with an extreme introvert doesn’t sound all that appealing at first, but Lars is easy to understand as a character especially if you’re an introvert yourself or have had trouble with the opposite sex at some point in your life. Dating was always this massive hurdle that only seemed to expand and grow with each failed first date or cancellation. With those experiences and that mentality where you find yourself retreating into your own constructed sanctuary, Lars is strangely easy to relate to.
It’s not that Ryan Gosling hasn’t been a part of big budget films, but Lars and the Real Girl was released at a time in his career when he was catering more towards the independent side of things. This is pre-Drive yet post-Notebook Ryan Gosling here; films like Half Nelson and Blue Valentine solidified how talented Gosling is as an actor without all the bells and whistles of a huge cast or blockbuster film. Lars and the Real Girl is the film that made a lot of people realize that Gosling was more than a teenage heartthrob and former Mouseketeer.
Gosling fits the Lars Lindstrom role perfectly as he’s capable of portraying quirks that are as awkward as they are charming. How he’s able to talk to a doll for over an hour and not only make it believable, but also entertaining is incredibly impressive. Part of that is attributed to Bianca being treated like an actual person with her own trailer, getting dressed in private, and only being on set when she was in the scene, but Gosling also contributed quite a bit as well. Gosling improvised the CPR on Margo’s teddy bear sequence and the scene before he and Bianca enter the party.
The film fits that independent film mold a bit too well as it has humor that’s funny but not laugh out loud funny and is dramatic and heartfelt enough to make you invested in something you likely never would without the context of the film. The film shares elements from films like Her, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and Lost in Translation; that sensation of being lost in what is considered to be normal society but finding something unorthodox that makes you belong and feel comfortable and whole. There’s this overwhelming sense of charm and sentimentality that can only be found in films like this.
Lars and the Real Girl is a comedic drama that relies on awkward situations or even one rare occurrence that triggers unusual peculiarities as it focuses on people’s reactions to these situations that occur. It’s worth seeing if you’ve ever felt like an outcast and to witness Lars’ odd behavior and the snowball effect that it causes. Introverts will likely enjoy it more than the average film lover, but Lars and the Real Girl takes something that seems taboo on the surface and molds it into this genuine motion picture experience that is strangely beautiful.
Lars and the Real Girl is currently available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Google Play, and Vudu for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. It’s also available to stream for free on Amazon Prime if you have Starz with Prime Video channels. The DVD is $8.51 and the Multi-Format Blu-ray is $7.68 on Amazon. On eBay, the DVD is $7.98 and the Blu-ray is $7.95 (or best offer) while both are in brand new condition and both have free shipping.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Tingler (1959) in Movies
Dec 5, 2020
Vincent Price (1 more)
William Castle
When You Scream
The Tingler- is a excellent movie and if you havent watched it than go watch it.
The plot: Dr. Warren Chapin (Vincent Price) has made a surprising discovery -- the spine-chilling sensation that people get when scared is due to a parasite that he dubs the "tingler." Chapin concludes that in extreme circumstances, prolonged fear can cause the creature to damage a person's spine and even cause death if the victim can't scream, a theory that Oliver Higgins (Philip Coolidge) uses to deadly effect on his wife (Judith Evelyn). Soon the tingler that killed the woman is on the loose.
Castle used gimmicks to sell the film. The Tingler remains most well known for a gimmick called "Percepto!", a vibrating device in some theater chairs which activated with the onscreen action.
In a similar manner as Universal's Frankenstein (1931), Castle opened the film with an on-screen warning to the audience:
"I am William Castle, the director of the motion picture you are about to see. I feel obligated to warn you that some of the sensations—some of the physical reactions which the actors on the screen will feel—will also be experienced, for the first time in motion picture history, by certain members of this audience. I say 'certain members' because some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others. These unfortunate, sensitive people will at times feel a strange, tingling sensation; other people will feel it less strongly. But don't be alarmed—you can protect yourself. At any time you are conscious of a tingling sensation, you may obtain immediate relief by screaming. Don't be embarrassed about opening your mouth and letting rip with all you've got, because the person in the seat right next to you will probably be screaming too. And remember—a scream at the right time may save your life."
William Castle was famous for his movie gimmicks, and The Tingler featured one of his best: "Percepto!". Previously, he had offered a $1,000 life insurance policy against "Death by Fright" for Macabre (1958) and sent a skeleton flying above the audiences' heads in the auditorium in House on Haunted Hill (1959).
"Percepto!" was a gimmick where Castle attached electrical "buzzers" to the underside of some seats in theaters where The Tingler was screened. The buzzers were small surplus airplane wing deicing motors left from World War II. The cost of this equipment added $250,000 to the film's budget. It was used predominantly in larger theaters.
During the climax of the film, The Tingler was unleashed in the movie theater, while the audience watched Tol'able David (1921), in which a young woman escapes the unwanted advances of her boyfriend and is targeted. In the real-life theater, a woman screamed and then pretended to faint; she was then taken away in a stretcher, all part of the show arranged by Castle. From the screen, the voice of Price mentioned the fainted lady and asked the rest of the audience to remain seated. The film-within-a-film resumed and was interrupted again. The projected film appeared to break as the silhouette of the tingler moved across the projection beam. The image of the film went dark, all lights in the auditorium (except fire exit signs) went off, and Price's voice warned the audience, "Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The tingler is loose in this theater!" This cued the theater projectionist to activate the Percepto! buzzers, giving some audience members an unexpected jolt, followed by a highly visible physical reaction. The voices of scared patrons were heard from the screen, replaced by the voice of Price, who explained that the tingler was paralyzed and the danger was over. At this point, the film resumed its normal format, which was used for its epilogue
An alternate warning was recorded for drive-in theaters; this warning advised the audience the tingler was loose in the drive-in. Castle's voice was substituted for Price's in this version.
Castle's autobiography, Step Right Up!: I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, erroneously stated that "Percepto!" delivered electric shocks to the theater seats.
To enhance the climax even more, Castle hired fake "screamers and fainters" planted in the audience There were fake nurses stationed in the foyer and an ambulance outside of the theater. The "fainters" would be carried out on a gurney and whisked away in the ambulance, to return for the next showing.
Although The Tingler was filmed in black-and-white, a short color sequence was spliced into the film. It showed a sink (in black-and-white) with bright-red "blood" flowing from the taps and a black-and-white Evelyn watching a bloody red hand rising from a bathtub, likewise filled with the bright red "blood". Castle used color film for the effect. The scene was accomplished by painting the set white, black and gray and applying gray makeup to the actress to simulate monochrome.
Excellent Film.
The plot: Dr. Warren Chapin (Vincent Price) has made a surprising discovery -- the spine-chilling sensation that people get when scared is due to a parasite that he dubs the "tingler." Chapin concludes that in extreme circumstances, prolonged fear can cause the creature to damage a person's spine and even cause death if the victim can't scream, a theory that Oliver Higgins (Philip Coolidge) uses to deadly effect on his wife (Judith Evelyn). Soon the tingler that killed the woman is on the loose.
Castle used gimmicks to sell the film. The Tingler remains most well known for a gimmick called "Percepto!", a vibrating device in some theater chairs which activated with the onscreen action.
In a similar manner as Universal's Frankenstein (1931), Castle opened the film with an on-screen warning to the audience:
"I am William Castle, the director of the motion picture you are about to see. I feel obligated to warn you that some of the sensations—some of the physical reactions which the actors on the screen will feel—will also be experienced, for the first time in motion picture history, by certain members of this audience. I say 'certain members' because some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others. These unfortunate, sensitive people will at times feel a strange, tingling sensation; other people will feel it less strongly. But don't be alarmed—you can protect yourself. At any time you are conscious of a tingling sensation, you may obtain immediate relief by screaming. Don't be embarrassed about opening your mouth and letting rip with all you've got, because the person in the seat right next to you will probably be screaming too. And remember—a scream at the right time may save your life."
William Castle was famous for his movie gimmicks, and The Tingler featured one of his best: "Percepto!". Previously, he had offered a $1,000 life insurance policy against "Death by Fright" for Macabre (1958) and sent a skeleton flying above the audiences' heads in the auditorium in House on Haunted Hill (1959).
"Percepto!" was a gimmick where Castle attached electrical "buzzers" to the underside of some seats in theaters where The Tingler was screened. The buzzers were small surplus airplane wing deicing motors left from World War II. The cost of this equipment added $250,000 to the film's budget. It was used predominantly in larger theaters.
During the climax of the film, The Tingler was unleashed in the movie theater, while the audience watched Tol'able David (1921), in which a young woman escapes the unwanted advances of her boyfriend and is targeted. In the real-life theater, a woman screamed and then pretended to faint; she was then taken away in a stretcher, all part of the show arranged by Castle. From the screen, the voice of Price mentioned the fainted lady and asked the rest of the audience to remain seated. The film-within-a-film resumed and was interrupted again. The projected film appeared to break as the silhouette of the tingler moved across the projection beam. The image of the film went dark, all lights in the auditorium (except fire exit signs) went off, and Price's voice warned the audience, "Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The tingler is loose in this theater!" This cued the theater projectionist to activate the Percepto! buzzers, giving some audience members an unexpected jolt, followed by a highly visible physical reaction. The voices of scared patrons were heard from the screen, replaced by the voice of Price, who explained that the tingler was paralyzed and the danger was over. At this point, the film resumed its normal format, which was used for its epilogue
An alternate warning was recorded for drive-in theaters; this warning advised the audience the tingler was loose in the drive-in. Castle's voice was substituted for Price's in this version.
Castle's autobiography, Step Right Up!: I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, erroneously stated that "Percepto!" delivered electric shocks to the theater seats.
To enhance the climax even more, Castle hired fake "screamers and fainters" planted in the audience There were fake nurses stationed in the foyer and an ambulance outside of the theater. The "fainters" would be carried out on a gurney and whisked away in the ambulance, to return for the next showing.
Although The Tingler was filmed in black-and-white, a short color sequence was spliced into the film. It showed a sink (in black-and-white) with bright-red "blood" flowing from the taps and a black-and-white Evelyn watching a bloody red hand rising from a bathtub, likewise filled with the bright red "blood". Castle used color film for the effect. The scene was accomplished by painting the set white, black and gray and applying gray makeup to the actress to simulate monochrome.
Excellent Film.