Search
JT (287 KP) rated Buried (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Shot with a low budget and entirely in one location (inside Paul’s coffin), Buried is a very intense and gripping movie, which plays on the age-old human fear of being buried alive and takes it to whole new levels.
Paul not only has to deal with thoughts of his almost imminent demise, but he also has to endure the psychological torment that comes with realising that your loved ones are in terrible danger and that the people whom your life depends upon don’t really care about your fate. This is the story of Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds), an American contractor working on an assignment in Iraq, who wakes up in something which looks like a makeshift wooden coffin, alone, and with no recollection of when and how he ended up there. All he remembers is that he and his colleagues were attacked by a group of Iraqi insurgents.
Understandably, he begins to panic, frantically trying to escape before realising that he won’t be able to do it on his own. Whoever buried him left a mobile phone, a lighter, a knife, a torch and some glow sticks in the coffin, and such items quickly become Paul’s connection to the outside world and his only hope of survival.
This situation is so exceptional (thankfully) that the film’s real challenge is to try and represent it as realistically as possible. What would you do? Would you let the nerves get the better of you, or would your will to live step in instead, and make you stay focused in trying to save yourself?
Ryan Reynolds does an excellent job in this, his Paul Conroy is human, desperate, scared, with no superhero pretence. The direction, by Rodrigo Cortes, is vivid, realistic, and makes good use of the limited space that the coffin setting allows to show; anxious people should try watching this anyway because, while it is undoubtedly claustrophobic, Paul’s determination to stay alive and the pull of wanting to know what’s going on outside keeps the mind occupied.
The voice of Hostage Work Group operator Dan Brenner (Robert Paterson) is possibly a little too “staged” and “actorish”, making it sound somewhat fake but also sinister, going to heighten the feeling of dread. Buried manages to be scary, tense, and yet ironic in representing the ignorance, incompetence and cowardice behind the behaviours of people we are supposed to trust in dangerous situations.
The whole film maintains a focused and realistic eye on the suffering of the protagonist – because we are supposed to feel what he feels, to be there with him in his fight for life- except maybe in a few moments when it slips into “mainstream”, cheap stratagems to reiterate that Paul is a good man who doesn’t deserve his fate (for example, when he calls his ill, senile mother who lives in a home and can’t even remember him).
Definitely best watched in a cinema screen rather than on DVD, this is a film which is very well done, and interesting; you will want to see what happens of Paul but also how his story is told from the confines of his coffin buried underground.
Paul not only has to deal with thoughts of his almost imminent demise, but he also has to endure the psychological torment that comes with realising that your loved ones are in terrible danger and that the people whom your life depends upon don’t really care about your fate. This is the story of Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds), an American contractor working on an assignment in Iraq, who wakes up in something which looks like a makeshift wooden coffin, alone, and with no recollection of when and how he ended up there. All he remembers is that he and his colleagues were attacked by a group of Iraqi insurgents.
Understandably, he begins to panic, frantically trying to escape before realising that he won’t be able to do it on his own. Whoever buried him left a mobile phone, a lighter, a knife, a torch and some glow sticks in the coffin, and such items quickly become Paul’s connection to the outside world and his only hope of survival.
This situation is so exceptional (thankfully) that the film’s real challenge is to try and represent it as realistically as possible. What would you do? Would you let the nerves get the better of you, or would your will to live step in instead, and make you stay focused in trying to save yourself?
Ryan Reynolds does an excellent job in this, his Paul Conroy is human, desperate, scared, with no superhero pretence. The direction, by Rodrigo Cortes, is vivid, realistic, and makes good use of the limited space that the coffin setting allows to show; anxious people should try watching this anyway because, while it is undoubtedly claustrophobic, Paul’s determination to stay alive and the pull of wanting to know what’s going on outside keeps the mind occupied.
The voice of Hostage Work Group operator Dan Brenner (Robert Paterson) is possibly a little too “staged” and “actorish”, making it sound somewhat fake but also sinister, going to heighten the feeling of dread. Buried manages to be scary, tense, and yet ironic in representing the ignorance, incompetence and cowardice behind the behaviours of people we are supposed to trust in dangerous situations.
The whole film maintains a focused and realistic eye on the suffering of the protagonist – because we are supposed to feel what he feels, to be there with him in his fight for life- except maybe in a few moments when it slips into “mainstream”, cheap stratagems to reiterate that Paul is a good man who doesn’t deserve his fate (for example, when he calls his ill, senile mother who lives in a home and can’t even remember him).
Definitely best watched in a cinema screen rather than on DVD, this is a film which is very well done, and interesting; you will want to see what happens of Paul but also how his story is told from the confines of his coffin buried underground.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Moulin Rouge! (2001) in Movies
Apr 15, 2020
In My "ALL TIME TOP 10"
If one would look at the BankofMarquis "All Time Top 10" film list, you will see such stalwarts as THE GODFATHER, SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and CITIZEN KANE. It also would contain a "more modern" film that doesn't, necessarily, find itself on these types of lists - Baz Luhrman's MOULIN ROUGE from 2001.
Yes...it's that good.
Set at the turn of the century (the 19th to the 20th century) during the Bohemian Revolution in Paris, MOULIN ROUGE tells the tale of the...you guessed it...the Moulin Rouge theater/club where a young writer (Ewan McGregor) gets pulled into the lives of the artists and others trying to make a living, falling in love with a young courtesan, Satine (Nicole Kidman) all under the watchful eye of Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent).
But it is not the story, but the telling of the story that sets this film apart. It is chaotic, wild, colorful, sexy, grimy, loving, alcoholic and spectacular - all things that not only describe this film, but the Moulin Rouge itself. Directer Baz Luhrman really shines in his vision of this picture that juxtaposes colorful sets and costumes, unique characters and songs and dance and music that tells the tale in a a unique way.
Oh...did I mention that most of this music is MODERN music? From Elton John's YOUR SONG to Roger's and Hammerstein's THE SOUND OF MUSIC to LADY MARMALADE to the ingenious use of Sting's ROXANNE (in a tango scene no less), this film is an amalgam of song that fits each scene perfectly. At what first seems incongruous, upon further viewings, the songs are slyly picked to accent the emotions and dramatic purpose of each scene.
As for the acting, McGregor and Kidman are beautifully cast (pun intended) as the young lovers. Their good looks radiate across the screen and I thought they had great chemistry. John Leguzamo and the other "Bohemians" pop in and out and are uniquely outrageous without being annoying. Richard Roxburgh's antagonist, "the Duke", came across in this viewing as not nearly as annoying as I have found him to be previously. Maybe there is more to this character/performance than meets the eye.
But it is Jim Broadbent's portrayal of the Master Shoman, Harold Zidler, that steals this film for me. He is a cunning and ingenious showman who (more than once) proves that he will stop at nothing for the "show to go on", but there are many notes to Zidler, at once in control and at the same time trying to KEEP control of events spiraling out of his control that actually shows a desperate man doing whatever he can to survive.
Add all these ingredients up and you have a film that gets deeper and richer with each subsequent viewing. I have yet to get tired of this film - and I am looking forward to the next time I immerse myself into this world.
Letter Grade: A +
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes...it's that good.
Set at the turn of the century (the 19th to the 20th century) during the Bohemian Revolution in Paris, MOULIN ROUGE tells the tale of the...you guessed it...the Moulin Rouge theater/club where a young writer (Ewan McGregor) gets pulled into the lives of the artists and others trying to make a living, falling in love with a young courtesan, Satine (Nicole Kidman) all under the watchful eye of Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent).
But it is not the story, but the telling of the story that sets this film apart. It is chaotic, wild, colorful, sexy, grimy, loving, alcoholic and spectacular - all things that not only describe this film, but the Moulin Rouge itself. Directer Baz Luhrman really shines in his vision of this picture that juxtaposes colorful sets and costumes, unique characters and songs and dance and music that tells the tale in a a unique way.
Oh...did I mention that most of this music is MODERN music? From Elton John's YOUR SONG to Roger's and Hammerstein's THE SOUND OF MUSIC to LADY MARMALADE to the ingenious use of Sting's ROXANNE (in a tango scene no less), this film is an amalgam of song that fits each scene perfectly. At what first seems incongruous, upon further viewings, the songs are slyly picked to accent the emotions and dramatic purpose of each scene.
As for the acting, McGregor and Kidman are beautifully cast (pun intended) as the young lovers. Their good looks radiate across the screen and I thought they had great chemistry. John Leguzamo and the other "Bohemians" pop in and out and are uniquely outrageous without being annoying. Richard Roxburgh's antagonist, "the Duke", came across in this viewing as not nearly as annoying as I have found him to be previously. Maybe there is more to this character/performance than meets the eye.
But it is Jim Broadbent's portrayal of the Master Shoman, Harold Zidler, that steals this film for me. He is a cunning and ingenious showman who (more than once) proves that he will stop at nothing for the "show to go on", but there are many notes to Zidler, at once in control and at the same time trying to KEEP control of events spiraling out of his control that actually shows a desperate man doing whatever he can to survive.
Add all these ingredients up and you have a film that gets deeper and richer with each subsequent viewing. I have yet to get tired of this film - and I am looking forward to the next time I immerse myself into this world.
Letter Grade: A +
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
May 12, 2019
To Infinity....and Beyond!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Perhaps it's the eternal child in me, the three year old boy who developed a passion for superheroes after first seeing the 1966 Batman movie in the cinema (re-run of course, this was the 70's!), but this is without doubt the best film I have ever seen! Running at around 2 hours and 20 minutes in length (that's prior to the end credits mind you!) this movie brings together plot strands and characters from the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 10 year tapestry in what I will only describe as an epic thrill-ride.
I'm sure if you're reading this you know the plot. Thanos - the granite jawed world killer from the planet Titan, is rounding up the 6 all powerful infinity stones with which he plans to restore the balance of the universe through essentially wiping out 50% of everything. All that stands in his way are The Avengers, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, Spiderman, Black Panther, and probably a few I've forgotten to mention! And that's pretty much the story.
We pick things up directly from the mid credits scene of Thor: Ragnarok where the refugee Asgardians, Bruce Banner, and Loki encountered a spaceship of epic proportions. We all knew it at the time... Thanos! Within the first five minutes or so we already have our first casualties at the hands of the purple behemoth which sets the tone for what follows. In possession of two of the stones Thanos dispatches his 'children' - the Black Order, to Earth to retrieve the Mind and Time stones whilst he tracks down the remaining ones. At quite a quick pace our heroes are introduced into the chaos and by employing this structure the writers ably break down the ensemble into smaller manageable groups. Stark, Peter Parker, and Doctor Strange are hurled into the vastness of Space where they encounter Peter Quill and some of his merry misfits, Thor and some of the other Guardians go off in search off forging a weapon to defeat Thanos, and Rogers, Romanoff, Wilson, Rhodes and Maximoff take Vision to Wakanda in order to try and separate the Mind Stone from him with the aid of T'Challa, Shuri and Okaye. Gamora finds herself the prisoner of her adoptive father - a storyline that gives both Brolin and Saldana a chance to really show their worth. Those are effectively the four story strands at play and each is a joy in its own right.
Each character stays true to form with Hemsworth taking the character along he rediscovered in 'Ragnarok' - albeit with some added darkness from the movie's opening moments. Chris Pratt is sheer joy as Quill/Starlord and his interplay with Stark and Hemsworth is a joy to behold. Tom Holland gets one of the best lines when responding to a question from Quill regarding a certain Kevin Bacon movie! Top marks also go to the man who launched this universe a decade ago as Iron Man - yes, Robert Downey Jr knocks it out of the park as a Tony Stark far removed from that we encountered back in the first movie of the MCU. His performance at the climax is simply first rate.
With such a large cast there are characters who don't get as much to do as others although everyone get's a 'moment or two' amongst proceedings. Those that particularly stand out, however, are Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man (reiterating my earlier comments), Chris Hemsworth as Thor (likewise), Zoe Saldana as Gamora (ditto), Chris Pratt as Starlord/Peter Quill (and again), Paul Bettany as Vision and Elisabeth Olsen as Wanda/Scarlet Witch. Surprisingly, Chris Evans doesn't seem to get much to do other than play an active role in a number of excellent battle sequences, although his introduction into the movie along with Black Widow and Falcon as they turn up in Scotland to save the day for Vision and Wanda Maximoff from the Black Order was a personal fist thumping the air moment!
There's simply so much to talk about and I'll stop myself there. If, like myself, you just can't avoid spoilers then chances are you know what happens in this movie by now...including that ending!!
Thanos is the perfect villain, fantastically realised, and given real motivation for his actions - the guy thinks he's showing mercy to the universe! I wouldn't agree that this is his movie as the film-makers have repeatedly stated however he is the central cog that keeps things turning.~Josh Brolin does an exceptional job in bringing Thanos to life. Given the feedback and reaction to Steppenwolf in the DCEU there could have been obvious concerns around another CGI villain. Fear not, the technology is exceptional and Brolin's features are evident 100% making Thanos a living creation.
Alan Silvestri's score is the perfect fit and really compliments the action unfolding on the screen. During the aforementioned fist in the air moment as Steve Rogers, Black Widow, and Falcon make their first appearance to take on the Black Order, Silvestri's 'Avengers' theme kicks in creating pure movie magic.
Simply put, this movie is pure perfection.
I'm sure if you're reading this you know the plot. Thanos - the granite jawed world killer from the planet Titan, is rounding up the 6 all powerful infinity stones with which he plans to restore the balance of the universe through essentially wiping out 50% of everything. All that stands in his way are The Avengers, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, Spiderman, Black Panther, and probably a few I've forgotten to mention! And that's pretty much the story.
We pick things up directly from the mid credits scene of Thor: Ragnarok where the refugee Asgardians, Bruce Banner, and Loki encountered a spaceship of epic proportions. We all knew it at the time... Thanos! Within the first five minutes or so we already have our first casualties at the hands of the purple behemoth which sets the tone for what follows. In possession of two of the stones Thanos dispatches his 'children' - the Black Order, to Earth to retrieve the Mind and Time stones whilst he tracks down the remaining ones. At quite a quick pace our heroes are introduced into the chaos and by employing this structure the writers ably break down the ensemble into smaller manageable groups. Stark, Peter Parker, and Doctor Strange are hurled into the vastness of Space where they encounter Peter Quill and some of his merry misfits, Thor and some of the other Guardians go off in search off forging a weapon to defeat Thanos, and Rogers, Romanoff, Wilson, Rhodes and Maximoff take Vision to Wakanda in order to try and separate the Mind Stone from him with the aid of T'Challa, Shuri and Okaye. Gamora finds herself the prisoner of her adoptive father - a storyline that gives both Brolin and Saldana a chance to really show their worth. Those are effectively the four story strands at play and each is a joy in its own right.
Each character stays true to form with Hemsworth taking the character along he rediscovered in 'Ragnarok' - albeit with some added darkness from the movie's opening moments. Chris Pratt is sheer joy as Quill/Starlord and his interplay with Stark and Hemsworth is a joy to behold. Tom Holland gets one of the best lines when responding to a question from Quill regarding a certain Kevin Bacon movie! Top marks also go to the man who launched this universe a decade ago as Iron Man - yes, Robert Downey Jr knocks it out of the park as a Tony Stark far removed from that we encountered back in the first movie of the MCU. His performance at the climax is simply first rate.
With such a large cast there are characters who don't get as much to do as others although everyone get's a 'moment or two' amongst proceedings. Those that particularly stand out, however, are Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man (reiterating my earlier comments), Chris Hemsworth as Thor (likewise), Zoe Saldana as Gamora (ditto), Chris Pratt as Starlord/Peter Quill (and again), Paul Bettany as Vision and Elisabeth Olsen as Wanda/Scarlet Witch. Surprisingly, Chris Evans doesn't seem to get much to do other than play an active role in a number of excellent battle sequences, although his introduction into the movie along with Black Widow and Falcon as they turn up in Scotland to save the day for Vision and Wanda Maximoff from the Black Order was a personal fist thumping the air moment!
There's simply so much to talk about and I'll stop myself there. If, like myself, you just can't avoid spoilers then chances are you know what happens in this movie by now...including that ending!!
Thanos is the perfect villain, fantastically realised, and given real motivation for his actions - the guy thinks he's showing mercy to the universe! I wouldn't agree that this is his movie as the film-makers have repeatedly stated however he is the central cog that keeps things turning.~Josh Brolin does an exceptional job in bringing Thanos to life. Given the feedback and reaction to Steppenwolf in the DCEU there could have been obvious concerns around another CGI villain. Fear not, the technology is exceptional and Brolin's features are evident 100% making Thanos a living creation.
Alan Silvestri's score is the perfect fit and really compliments the action unfolding on the screen. During the aforementioned fist in the air moment as Steve Rogers, Black Widow, and Falcon make their first appearance to take on the Black Order, Silvestri's 'Avengers' theme kicks in creating pure movie magic.
Simply put, this movie is pure perfection.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated End of Watch (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Director/Writer David Ayer (Street Kings, Training day) once again takes us into the world of the Los Angeles police department in the new movie End of Watch. Only this time rather than go in the corrupt police officer direction he has gone before, Ayer instead takes audiences on a honest and somewhat realistic emotionally charged ride along with two young and confident LAPD patrolmen.
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Les Misérables (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Words cannot express how amazing this movie is. For those of you who have shouldered through the modern-day musical revival; suffering through the questionable singing talents of many stars as “Phantom of the Opera,” “Chicago,” “Moulin Rouge,” “Sweeny Todd,” and that abysmal rendition of “Nine” – I can assure you, that “Les Mis” will change that perception. For once, the casting crew took the time to select a cast capable of the repertoire’s vocal demands (and Les Mis is very vocally demanding – as most operatic pieces are). It’s apparent that each singer was heavily vocally coached and trained, some faring more so than others. While this is no replacement for raw talent, I can assure you that the cast was downright fantastic.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Pandorum (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
A man wakes up in a sleeping chamber of some kind aboard a ship trudging its way through outer space. He has no recollection of who he is, what his mission is, or how long he's been on this vessel. After being awake for an hour, his memory begins to come back to him. He knows his name is Bower and he has a wife who may be on the ship somewhere. That's about the time the power surges begin and Lieutenant Payton wakes up. After realizing that they can't do much without having full power, Bower ventures off on his own to see if he can figure out what's causing these power surges and if anymore of the crew is awake. Bower doesn't get too far before he figures out two things: the first being that he only has about forty five minutes until the reactor goes into emergency shut down unless he can reach it in time from the other side of the ship. The second is that there's something else on board and whatever it is isn't human.
I had wanted to see this film ever since it first hit theaters since it had been a few years since the last sci-fi horror film I really enjoyed and I was really craving one. I missed it during its initial run though since it didn't perform so well at the box office (only a little over $10 million to date) and the response from moviegoers seemed a bit mixed (7.2 on IMDb, 27% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). I had my doubts about the film since I knew Paul W.S. Anderson was involved and I've been rather disappointed with the majority of his films. Even though he was only a producer this time around, I knew his influence would still be on the project and it certainly was. So how did Pandorum stack up against the rest of Anderson's filmography? Probably about the same, but I enjoyed it overall.
The film starts off with an interesting premise, but the storyline seems to get more and more tangled up in itself as its twists and turns unravel. The viewer is left slightly disoriented by the time it's all said and done. There's at least two twists in there and several complicated conversations explaining what's actually going on. The other big problem for me was the fight scenes. Even though Christian Alvart is in the director's chair this time around, it seems as though some of Anderson's filming techniques left an impression on him as I remember having the same problem during the Resident Evil films (mainly Apocalypse). It's just hard to make out what's going on at times. You know someone has been stabbed or punched or kicked, but the camera zipping around so much sometimes makes it hard to see who is doing what.
The main reason to watch Pandorum is Ben Foster. He's just more and more impressive as an actor with every film he gets under his belt. I grew up watching him as Tucker James on Flash Forward and basically never forgot about him. After appearing in The Punisher, Hostage, and X-Men: The Last Stand, his most impressive role was in 3:10 To Yuma where he almost managed to steal the show from Russel Crowe and Christian Bale. It just seems like the more screen time Foster gets, the more time he has to portray how talented he really is. There are hints of Anderson's work on other films in Pandorum and although I'm not a big fan of his work, it was subtle and enjoyable overall. Event Horizon is the most obvious one, but there was a scene in the film where Bower and a few other people are trying to get to the reactor and they travel through a room that resembled the room in the first Resident Evil film with the lasers that wind up chopping most of them into bits. It was kind of interesting since Anderson's impression was definitely left on the film, but it felt like there was still enough material there for Christian Alvart to do his own thing as director. Speaking of Alvart, I was pleased that his two leads from his film Antibodies (André Hennicke and Wotan Wilke Möhring) had cameos in the film. Even Norman Reedus, who had a small role in Antibodies, managed to have a scene in Pandorum.
While Pandorum's storyline does seem to have about three turns too many and it's a bit difficult to make out what's going on when the action gets intense, it still managed to meet my expectations and be exactly what I was looking for with this type of film. Ben Foster definitely steals the show (Dennis Quaid is pretty good, as well) and the creatures in the film look similar to the ones from The Descent, which makes me think of this film as the offspring of Event Horizon and The Descent. If you're a fan of Event Horizon, Resident Evil, Aliens, or Sunshine, then this may be worth checking out. Considering its reputation, however, it'll probably have to be filed with the rest of my guilty pleasures.
I had wanted to see this film ever since it first hit theaters since it had been a few years since the last sci-fi horror film I really enjoyed and I was really craving one. I missed it during its initial run though since it didn't perform so well at the box office (only a little over $10 million to date) and the response from moviegoers seemed a bit mixed (7.2 on IMDb, 27% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). I had my doubts about the film since I knew Paul W.S. Anderson was involved and I've been rather disappointed with the majority of his films. Even though he was only a producer this time around, I knew his influence would still be on the project and it certainly was. So how did Pandorum stack up against the rest of Anderson's filmography? Probably about the same, but I enjoyed it overall.
The film starts off with an interesting premise, but the storyline seems to get more and more tangled up in itself as its twists and turns unravel. The viewer is left slightly disoriented by the time it's all said and done. There's at least two twists in there and several complicated conversations explaining what's actually going on. The other big problem for me was the fight scenes. Even though Christian Alvart is in the director's chair this time around, it seems as though some of Anderson's filming techniques left an impression on him as I remember having the same problem during the Resident Evil films (mainly Apocalypse). It's just hard to make out what's going on at times. You know someone has been stabbed or punched or kicked, but the camera zipping around so much sometimes makes it hard to see who is doing what.
The main reason to watch Pandorum is Ben Foster. He's just more and more impressive as an actor with every film he gets under his belt. I grew up watching him as Tucker James on Flash Forward and basically never forgot about him. After appearing in The Punisher, Hostage, and X-Men: The Last Stand, his most impressive role was in 3:10 To Yuma where he almost managed to steal the show from Russel Crowe and Christian Bale. It just seems like the more screen time Foster gets, the more time he has to portray how talented he really is. There are hints of Anderson's work on other films in Pandorum and although I'm not a big fan of his work, it was subtle and enjoyable overall. Event Horizon is the most obvious one, but there was a scene in the film where Bower and a few other people are trying to get to the reactor and they travel through a room that resembled the room in the first Resident Evil film with the lasers that wind up chopping most of them into bits. It was kind of interesting since Anderson's impression was definitely left on the film, but it felt like there was still enough material there for Christian Alvart to do his own thing as director. Speaking of Alvart, I was pleased that his two leads from his film Antibodies (André Hennicke and Wotan Wilke Möhring) had cameos in the film. Even Norman Reedus, who had a small role in Antibodies, managed to have a scene in Pandorum.
While Pandorum's storyline does seem to have about three turns too many and it's a bit difficult to make out what's going on when the action gets intense, it still managed to meet my expectations and be exactly what I was looking for with this type of film. Ben Foster definitely steals the show (Dennis Quaid is pretty good, as well) and the creatures in the film look similar to the ones from The Descent, which makes me think of this film as the offspring of Event Horizon and The Descent. If you're a fan of Event Horizon, Resident Evil, Aliens, or Sunshine, then this may be worth checking out. Considering its reputation, however, it'll probably have to be filed with the rest of my guilty pleasures.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Some nightmares you wake up from, wipe the sweat from your brow, and go back to wonderful slumber as though it never occurred. Others follow you in both your sleep and waking hours. For Dan Torrance (Ewan McGregor) the nightmare that began at the Overlook Hotel in Stephen King’s best-selling novel (and movie directed by Stanley Kubrick) The Shining continue to follow him through his childhood years. With the help of a friendly spirit (Carl Lumbly) Dan learns how to contain the malevolent spirits that followed him from his nightmarish experience, but at almost the cost of his sanity. Falling back on his fathers’ previous crutch, Dan drinks and fights his demons away every night, consumed by a different type of spirit to manage the pain and fear that he has been running from.
Dan is about to hit rock bottom when he encounters a man who has certainly suffered with his own demons in the past, who offers him a place to stay, a job, and an escape from the alcohol that held him in his own personal hell for several years. After eight years of sobriety he strikes up a psychic pen-pal friendship with a young girl named Abra Stone (Kyliegh Curran), who shares his powers. His wish to push his “shining” deep down inside him, and not let it come out is interrupted when Abra witnesses a murder of a young boy. Using her gift, she uncovers a group of beings so evil, that their desire for immortality requires them to snuff out the lives of those who share the same special gift as Dan and Abra. Dan and Abra must join forces, and let their lights shine, if they are to defeat this evil and save themselves and others like them in the process.
Doctor Sleep is the long-awaited sequel to The Shining released (on film at least) back in 1980. While the original film was lauded by most and reviled by some in the way that Stanley Kubrick brought the story to life, it serves as the backdrop to this sequel. Blending reshoots of the original film (using the current actors) as flash backs, it provides the necessary background to those who may have never had the opportunity to see the original, and visual reminders to those who have. While artistically the film doesn’t hold a shine to the original, it tells a far more consumable story, with less focus on the imagery and symbolism in each shot then Stanly Kubrick’s masterpiece.
The bond between Ewan McGregor and upcoming star Kyliegh Curran is not only believable but magical. The chemistry that the two share both in separate scenes and together show the tight bond they certainly must have felt on set. The movie is blessed with an entire cast of supporting characters, that bring the believability and professionalism to the big screen. Rebecca Ferguson, as our duos’ primary adversary Rose the Hat, provides an outstanding performance. Surrounded by her fellow shine-pires, Grandpa Flick (Carel Struycken), Snakebite Andi (Emily Alyn Lind) and Crow Daddy (Zahn McClarnon) to name just a few, the group reminds me of The Lost Boys in their cunning and hunger.
Doctor Sleep is not a scary movie, at least not when it’s put beside The Shining. While it has scary moments, this is a movie about putting aside your fear and challenging evil, regardless of the cost. Dan must put the past behind him and dig deep within himself to find his purpose and with this purpose will come a lot of loss, but acceptance at the same time. The movie begins a little slow and picks up midway through. While the battle against many of the shine-pires may feel a little hollow at first, it’s nothing to what will compare with the ultimate climax between good and evil.
Fans of the Stanley Kubrick film will see lots of familiar locations and costumes throughout the two-and-a-half-hour show. Even the re-created scenes share the same visual imagery and spectacle, just as if it was simply a re-master. I actually liked that they reshot the pivotal scenes and characters, while no one can perfectly mimic the master of Jack Nicholson, I felt that Henry Thomas did an amazing job in his portrayal of the young Jack Torrance. Alex Essoe portrayed an outstanding Wendy Torrance, a role that was masterfully played by Shelley Duvall back in the day.
With the magnitude of Stephen King movies (and series) being released in the recent years, it could easily feel as if we have all been teleported back to the 80’s. There have been some homeruns in recent years (and some foul balls), but Doctor Sleep easily ranks up there as one of the better of the Stephen King movies to be released in recent memory. While the movie is much more action-oriented and doesn’t deliver on the sheer terror of the original, it suits the story, and does a commendable way of bringing closure to some of Stephen King’s more notable characters. Both fans and non-fans of the original will find a lot to like, and for those looking for more story (and less artistry) will be extremely pleased with the way director Mike Flanagan (The Haunting of Hill House series / Hush) brings this rendition to the screen. So, let your light shine and go see Doctor Sleep.
Dan is about to hit rock bottom when he encounters a man who has certainly suffered with his own demons in the past, who offers him a place to stay, a job, and an escape from the alcohol that held him in his own personal hell for several years. After eight years of sobriety he strikes up a psychic pen-pal friendship with a young girl named Abra Stone (Kyliegh Curran), who shares his powers. His wish to push his “shining” deep down inside him, and not let it come out is interrupted when Abra witnesses a murder of a young boy. Using her gift, she uncovers a group of beings so evil, that their desire for immortality requires them to snuff out the lives of those who share the same special gift as Dan and Abra. Dan and Abra must join forces, and let their lights shine, if they are to defeat this evil and save themselves and others like them in the process.
Doctor Sleep is the long-awaited sequel to The Shining released (on film at least) back in 1980. While the original film was lauded by most and reviled by some in the way that Stanley Kubrick brought the story to life, it serves as the backdrop to this sequel. Blending reshoots of the original film (using the current actors) as flash backs, it provides the necessary background to those who may have never had the opportunity to see the original, and visual reminders to those who have. While artistically the film doesn’t hold a shine to the original, it tells a far more consumable story, with less focus on the imagery and symbolism in each shot then Stanly Kubrick’s masterpiece.
The bond between Ewan McGregor and upcoming star Kyliegh Curran is not only believable but magical. The chemistry that the two share both in separate scenes and together show the tight bond they certainly must have felt on set. The movie is blessed with an entire cast of supporting characters, that bring the believability and professionalism to the big screen. Rebecca Ferguson, as our duos’ primary adversary Rose the Hat, provides an outstanding performance. Surrounded by her fellow shine-pires, Grandpa Flick (Carel Struycken), Snakebite Andi (Emily Alyn Lind) and Crow Daddy (Zahn McClarnon) to name just a few, the group reminds me of The Lost Boys in their cunning and hunger.
Doctor Sleep is not a scary movie, at least not when it’s put beside The Shining. While it has scary moments, this is a movie about putting aside your fear and challenging evil, regardless of the cost. Dan must put the past behind him and dig deep within himself to find his purpose and with this purpose will come a lot of loss, but acceptance at the same time. The movie begins a little slow and picks up midway through. While the battle against many of the shine-pires may feel a little hollow at first, it’s nothing to what will compare with the ultimate climax between good and evil.
Fans of the Stanley Kubrick film will see lots of familiar locations and costumes throughout the two-and-a-half-hour show. Even the re-created scenes share the same visual imagery and spectacle, just as if it was simply a re-master. I actually liked that they reshot the pivotal scenes and characters, while no one can perfectly mimic the master of Jack Nicholson, I felt that Henry Thomas did an amazing job in his portrayal of the young Jack Torrance. Alex Essoe portrayed an outstanding Wendy Torrance, a role that was masterfully played by Shelley Duvall back in the day.
With the magnitude of Stephen King movies (and series) being released in the recent years, it could easily feel as if we have all been teleported back to the 80’s. There have been some homeruns in recent years (and some foul balls), but Doctor Sleep easily ranks up there as one of the better of the Stephen King movies to be released in recent memory. While the movie is much more action-oriented and doesn’t deliver on the sheer terror of the original, it suits the story, and does a commendable way of bringing closure to some of Stephen King’s more notable characters. Both fans and non-fans of the original will find a lot to like, and for those looking for more story (and less artistry) will be extremely pleased with the way director Mike Flanagan (The Haunting of Hill House series / Hush) brings this rendition to the screen. So, let your light shine and go see Doctor Sleep.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2020 (Updated Jan 8, 2020)
With media currently showing us scenes of disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as he shuffles into court, expecting sympathy while his victims continue to try and rebuild their lives, along comes the timely release of Bombshell. Based on a high profile #MeToo scandal, Bombshell gives us a look deep inside the heart of Fox News, and tells the explosive story of the women who fought back against the powerful man who created it.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Blackbeard in TV
May 28, 2017
Good cast (1 more)
Decent for a TV miniseries/movie
Not entirely accurate (2 more)
The characters and boats are far too clean
TV effects (or lack of) might spoil some scenes
Somewhat entertaining
So I was on the search for some more Pirate movies at my local DVD stores, in hopes of finding something with the effects of Pirates of the Caribbean, but a more serious plot like that of the Black Sails series. Something that feels more like how the golden age of piracy would seem, not quite as quirky and humorous as the Disney films, although I cannot fault them for they are some of my favourite movies. It was on my search, that I came across this, and my initial thoughts were that whilst it looked cheap, it could be an entertaining film. As it turns out, I discovered this was a TV miniseries, merged into roughly a 162 minute film.
It has some charm, I can say that much for it. The cast are decent with very few famous names, and the acting itself isn't dreadful. However, there seems to be some lacking in the actual filming and editing of the episodes/feature. It has a decent plot which involves a hunt for treasure, a hunt for justice and slight revenge, which makes the viewing, feel like a pirate experience should be, but there still seems to lack the proper visuals to complete the experience.
If you take a look at Pirates of the Caribbean, one aspect that makes those films so darn good is the visuals. The pirates are dirty, rotting teeth, golden teeth, dirty fingernails, and their ships are battle worn with scars in the woodwork and again, the dirt from barnicles, and land. The ships in this feature on the other hand, are the cleanest ships you'll see in a pirate themed show or movie, and they look as if they were freshly made straight from the ship builder themselves. There doesn't appear to be any barnicles clung onto them, nor are there any battle scars, even after you witness a battle in the beginning of the film. The pirates themselves are also clean, all with white teeth as though they visited a dentist and brushed their teeth with colgate or the next best brand. There's not a single sign of scurvy which was popular among pirates during the golden age, and I didn't really spot any scars from battles apart from the obvious ones where you witness a member of Blackbeards crew have part of his leg removed due to injury (you don't see the gruesome imagery, as it's 12 rated series). Other than that though, there no facial scars, no sign to tell us that Blackbeard has fought enough battles and lived through them to become reknowned as a devil instead of a man. We only see what appears to be a couple of weeks of him as a Captain, and yet he claims to already be known as the scurge of the seas, which is highly unlikely given that we only see him battle one ship and spend the rest of his time hunting treasure, never running across another opposing ship until the finale, which sees Blackbeard battle against a crew of Royal Navy soldiers led by Lieutenant Robert Maynard.
Whilst the plot had me intrigued for the most part, I can't say that this is a film I would 'Highly' recommend, but if you fancy watching a pirate movie, this could be somewhat sufficient until you find something else, despite some of the deaths in battle seeming very staged, as sometimes I would notice a sword being shoved theatrically into someones armpit, only for the victim of the blade to fall lifeless to the floor, some holding onto the blade as though left in their body, others being retrieved from the 'corpse' with no visible blood on the blade.
With very historical accuracy's, mostly about the legend of Captain Kidd, hiding treasure, and the title's that Blackbeard earned, before his life was taken by that of Robert Maynard, the location of his death, and some other less important factors, were dramatized for the series alone and should not be taken as historically accurate.
It's a decent film, but it's just not quite what I was hoping for, and certainly not as great as it could have been.
It has some charm, I can say that much for it. The cast are decent with very few famous names, and the acting itself isn't dreadful. However, there seems to be some lacking in the actual filming and editing of the episodes/feature. It has a decent plot which involves a hunt for treasure, a hunt for justice and slight revenge, which makes the viewing, feel like a pirate experience should be, but there still seems to lack the proper visuals to complete the experience.
If you take a look at Pirates of the Caribbean, one aspect that makes those films so darn good is the visuals. The pirates are dirty, rotting teeth, golden teeth, dirty fingernails, and their ships are battle worn with scars in the woodwork and again, the dirt from barnicles, and land. The ships in this feature on the other hand, are the cleanest ships you'll see in a pirate themed show or movie, and they look as if they were freshly made straight from the ship builder themselves. There doesn't appear to be any barnicles clung onto them, nor are there any battle scars, even after you witness a battle in the beginning of the film. The pirates themselves are also clean, all with white teeth as though they visited a dentist and brushed their teeth with colgate or the next best brand. There's not a single sign of scurvy which was popular among pirates during the golden age, and I didn't really spot any scars from battles apart from the obvious ones where you witness a member of Blackbeards crew have part of his leg removed due to injury (you don't see the gruesome imagery, as it's 12 rated series). Other than that though, there no facial scars, no sign to tell us that Blackbeard has fought enough battles and lived through them to become reknowned as a devil instead of a man. We only see what appears to be a couple of weeks of him as a Captain, and yet he claims to already be known as the scurge of the seas, which is highly unlikely given that we only see him battle one ship and spend the rest of his time hunting treasure, never running across another opposing ship until the finale, which sees Blackbeard battle against a crew of Royal Navy soldiers led by Lieutenant Robert Maynard.
Whilst the plot had me intrigued for the most part, I can't say that this is a film I would 'Highly' recommend, but if you fancy watching a pirate movie, this could be somewhat sufficient until you find something else, despite some of the deaths in battle seeming very staged, as sometimes I would notice a sword being shoved theatrically into someones armpit, only for the victim of the blade to fall lifeless to the floor, some holding onto the blade as though left in their body, others being retrieved from the 'corpse' with no visible blood on the blade.
With very historical accuracy's, mostly about the legend of Captain Kidd, hiding treasure, and the title's that Blackbeard earned, before his life was taken by that of Robert Maynard, the location of his death, and some other less important factors, were dramatized for the series alone and should not be taken as historically accurate.
It's a decent film, but it's just not quite what I was hoping for, and certainly not as great as it could have been.