Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On the Rocks (2020) in Movies
Oct 23, 2020
Bill Murray being Bill Murray, but in sparkling form
Bill Murray is astonishing. Not just in "On the Rocks", but generally in life. Some actors - Johnny Depp, Mark Rylance, Gary Oldman, for instance - disappear completely into their characters so it takes a while to "see" who they are. Whereas with others - Bill Nighy, Tom Cruise, John Wayne, for instance - it's "Oh, there's the famous actor xxxx in a new movie". If we were grading on a scale, Bill Murray would be at the far right of the latter category. In every movie, he IS Bill Murray! In "Ghostbusters" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking ghost hunter. In "Groundhog Day" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking weatherman. In "The Monuments Men" he was the dry, laconic, wisecracking art historian. (In the "Zombieland" movies, he excelled himself by playing the dry, laconic, wisecracking Bill Murray!)
For many actors, that would be a problem. But Bill Murray gets away with it, because - - he's Bill freakin' Murray!! And being him is so awesome that however many times you've seen the character, you always want more.
Here's a case in point. In "On the Rocks", a chaffeured car with tinted windows rolls up. You brace yourself as the window winds slowly down. And there he is... the star. This happens quite a way into Sofia Coppola's new film. First up, we get a leisurely, but intelligent, set-up to the plot. The "Parks and Recreation" actress, Rashida Jones, plays Laura; a successful writer (currently with writer's block) married to successful businessman Dean (Marlon Wayans). The couple seem to have it all: high income; large New York apartment; two lovely young children. But Dean is always away, travelling on business - and always with his attractive co-worker "with the legs" Fiona (Jessica Henwick). Is Dean scratching the seven-year itch?
Laura's rich, art-dealing father Felix (Bill Murray) arrives, and won't take no for an answer in sniffing out the truth.
Love, love, love this movie! The pacing, the humour, the witty dialogue (it's Sofia Coppola's script) and - above all - Murray's triumphant performance all fire this well and truly into my Top 10 for the year.
Bill Murray's acting is astounding... is there an actor who spends more time in his "deep in thought" mode, with eyeballs looking at the ceiling? You could quite well believe that none of it is scripted, and he's pausing in deep thought because he really is trying to compose the next best line! A scene where, through appropriate name-dropping, he charms his way out of a traffic infringement with two New York cops is utterly absorbing.
Behind every embarrassing father is a grown-up daughter rolling her eyes. (I should know!) And Rashida Jones is perfect in the role. I'm not familiar with Jones's previous work, but she was just perfect as the foil for Murray's humour.
There's dry comedy to be had throughout "On the Rocks" which I found delightful. A running joke is Laura's drop-off and pick-ups from the local kindergarten, where she is repeatedly pinned against the wall by single-mum Vanessa (Jenny Slate) and bored to death with her moans about boyfriend-hunting on the New York scene! It's an insight that the project is led by a female writer/director, reminiscing about personal experiences!
Coppola's script also buzzes with politically incorrect views of the playboy Felix. (He reminds me strongly of an ex-work colleague: the life and soul of any party and with a charisma that is naturally attractive to women!)
For me, there was just one misstep in the movie. There's a sub-plot about the estranged relationship between Felix and Laura's mother, and the unspoken tension that lies there. This all comes to a head in a hotel bedroom, and for me personally it brought the mood of the movie down and wasn't necessary. It's a relatively minor thing. But the result was that it just took the edge off things for me in declaring it a classic.
This is one of those flicks produced for Apple, in cinemas only while en-route to their streaming service to make it eligible for Oscar consideration. And it's actually available now. This is Coppola's third outing with Murray, with the most famous being the Oscar winner "Lost in Translation". I'm actually not a mad fan of that film. But this one comes with a "Highly recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/23/love-on-the-rocks-aint-no-surprise/ . Thanks)
For many actors, that would be a problem. But Bill Murray gets away with it, because - - he's Bill freakin' Murray!! And being him is so awesome that however many times you've seen the character, you always want more.
Here's a case in point. In "On the Rocks", a chaffeured car with tinted windows rolls up. You brace yourself as the window winds slowly down. And there he is... the star. This happens quite a way into Sofia Coppola's new film. First up, we get a leisurely, but intelligent, set-up to the plot. The "Parks and Recreation" actress, Rashida Jones, plays Laura; a successful writer (currently with writer's block) married to successful businessman Dean (Marlon Wayans). The couple seem to have it all: high income; large New York apartment; two lovely young children. But Dean is always away, travelling on business - and always with his attractive co-worker "with the legs" Fiona (Jessica Henwick). Is Dean scratching the seven-year itch?
Laura's rich, art-dealing father Felix (Bill Murray) arrives, and won't take no for an answer in sniffing out the truth.
Love, love, love this movie! The pacing, the humour, the witty dialogue (it's Sofia Coppola's script) and - above all - Murray's triumphant performance all fire this well and truly into my Top 10 for the year.
Bill Murray's acting is astounding... is there an actor who spends more time in his "deep in thought" mode, with eyeballs looking at the ceiling? You could quite well believe that none of it is scripted, and he's pausing in deep thought because he really is trying to compose the next best line! A scene where, through appropriate name-dropping, he charms his way out of a traffic infringement with two New York cops is utterly absorbing.
Behind every embarrassing father is a grown-up daughter rolling her eyes. (I should know!) And Rashida Jones is perfect in the role. I'm not familiar with Jones's previous work, but she was just perfect as the foil for Murray's humour.
There's dry comedy to be had throughout "On the Rocks" which I found delightful. A running joke is Laura's drop-off and pick-ups from the local kindergarten, where she is repeatedly pinned against the wall by single-mum Vanessa (Jenny Slate) and bored to death with her moans about boyfriend-hunting on the New York scene! It's an insight that the project is led by a female writer/director, reminiscing about personal experiences!
Coppola's script also buzzes with politically incorrect views of the playboy Felix. (He reminds me strongly of an ex-work colleague: the life and soul of any party and with a charisma that is naturally attractive to women!)
For me, there was just one misstep in the movie. There's a sub-plot about the estranged relationship between Felix and Laura's mother, and the unspoken tension that lies there. This all comes to a head in a hotel bedroom, and for me personally it brought the mood of the movie down and wasn't necessary. It's a relatively minor thing. But the result was that it just took the edge off things for me in declaring it a classic.
This is one of those flicks produced for Apple, in cinemas only while en-route to their streaming service to make it eligible for Oscar consideration. And it's actually available now. This is Coppola's third outing with Murray, with the most famous being the Oscar winner "Lost in Translation". I'm actually not a mad fan of that film. But this one comes with a "Highly recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/23/love-on-the-rocks-aint-no-surprise/ . Thanks)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Martian (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Ridley Scott's best film since Alien
It’s safe to say that Ridley Scott knows his way around a camera. From Alien to Gladiator, the director has brought to the silver screen some of the greatest films of all time, heck even Prometheus wasn’t that bad in a muddled kind of way.
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Hemsworth and Chastain Disappoint
Snow White & the Huntsman was a film that garnered much more attention than it deserved, purely because of the goings on behind the scenes between Twilight starlet, Kristen Stewart and director Rupert Sanders. The film itself was a hollow take on the classic fairy-tale that lacked the magic and sparkle of Disney’s wonderful animation.
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Nope (2022) in Movies
Jul 26, 2022
Original...Tense...and Entertaining
Producer/Writer/Director Jordan Peele has managed to accomplish something with his latest horror film - he has managed to make a completely original film both in concept and in execution.
To tell too much about the story of NOPE would be to spoil it - and letting this unique film unfold in front of you is a large part of the journey - but, to sum up…Hollywood Horse Wrangler, Otis Haywood Sr. (the great Keith David, THE THING), his son, Otis Haywood, Jr. - or as he is called in this film OJ (the incomparable Oscar-winner Daniel Kaluuya) and his daughter, Emerald (Keke Palmer of Disney Channel fame, amongst others) encounter some strange phenomena. Their investigation will draw in their neighbor, former child star Ricky “Jupe” Park (Steven Yeun, THE WALKING DEAD), a tech from the local IT Hardware store, Angel Torres (Brandon Perea, THE OA) and a wildlife cinematographer, Antlers Holst, who specializes in getting the “impossible” shot (Michael Wincott, THE CROW).
It’s a wildly entertaining, grip-your-armchair type of film that unfolds on the screen in clever ways (without getting “too” weird) - all with the pragmatic sensibilities of Peele, the former member of the comedy duo KEYE & PEELE. Jordan has grown into a filmmaker that must not be missed and in NOPE he showcases his skill with strong effect, being in complete control of the artistic point of view while delivering a highly entertaining thriller.
Of course, it helps that you have a performer as interesting to watch as Kaluuya - one of the finest performers in film today. He plays the taciturn OJ with complete “taciturn-ness” (if that is a word) and, in his skilled body, this performance works very, very well. He says more with a glance or a shrug than most people can say with a 1,000 words and he draws you into the screen and into his thoughts with tremendous intimacy.
Keke Palmer, by contrast, is the exact opposite. Her Emerald is flamboyant, chatty, up-beat and beset by inner demons made manifest by drugs, alcohol and smoke. It is a movie-saving performance by Palmer as she brings the heart and the energy to the proceedings while Kaluuya is the quiet brains and the soul.
Perea, Yeun, David and (especially) Wincott all add to the tapestry of the events and bring something interesting and worth looking at (and into) during the course of this film.
Peele ratchets the tension throughout this film like an expert and the Special Effects are used in exactly the right way that they needed to be used and showcased throughout the film - filling you with awe when that is called for and having you think to yourself “you’ve got to be kidding me” when that is exactly what the characters are thinking.
A masterful, original concept of a film by Peele - one that is not for everyone - but those that are into this type of thing are going to be in for a unique and original film filled with unique characters and more than one jump along the way.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
To tell too much about the story of NOPE would be to spoil it - and letting this unique film unfold in front of you is a large part of the journey - but, to sum up…Hollywood Horse Wrangler, Otis Haywood Sr. (the great Keith David, THE THING), his son, Otis Haywood, Jr. - or as he is called in this film OJ (the incomparable Oscar-winner Daniel Kaluuya) and his daughter, Emerald (Keke Palmer of Disney Channel fame, amongst others) encounter some strange phenomena. Their investigation will draw in their neighbor, former child star Ricky “Jupe” Park (Steven Yeun, THE WALKING DEAD), a tech from the local IT Hardware store, Angel Torres (Brandon Perea, THE OA) and a wildlife cinematographer, Antlers Holst, who specializes in getting the “impossible” shot (Michael Wincott, THE CROW).
It’s a wildly entertaining, grip-your-armchair type of film that unfolds on the screen in clever ways (without getting “too” weird) - all with the pragmatic sensibilities of Peele, the former member of the comedy duo KEYE & PEELE. Jordan has grown into a filmmaker that must not be missed and in NOPE he showcases his skill with strong effect, being in complete control of the artistic point of view while delivering a highly entertaining thriller.
Of course, it helps that you have a performer as interesting to watch as Kaluuya - one of the finest performers in film today. He plays the taciturn OJ with complete “taciturn-ness” (if that is a word) and, in his skilled body, this performance works very, very well. He says more with a glance or a shrug than most people can say with a 1,000 words and he draws you into the screen and into his thoughts with tremendous intimacy.
Keke Palmer, by contrast, is the exact opposite. Her Emerald is flamboyant, chatty, up-beat and beset by inner demons made manifest by drugs, alcohol and smoke. It is a movie-saving performance by Palmer as she brings the heart and the energy to the proceedings while Kaluuya is the quiet brains and the soul.
Perea, Yeun, David and (especially) Wincott all add to the tapestry of the events and bring something interesting and worth looking at (and into) during the course of this film.
Peele ratchets the tension throughout this film like an expert and the Special Effects are used in exactly the right way that they needed to be used and showcased throughout the film - filling you with awe when that is called for and having you think to yourself “you’ve got to be kidding me” when that is exactly what the characters are thinking.
A masterful, original concept of a film by Peele - one that is not for everyone - but those that are into this type of thing are going to be in for a unique and original film filled with unique characters and more than one jump along the way.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Los Angeles of 2028 is a riot laden area where Martial Law is the norm and brutality is a way of life. Amidst this setting, the Hotel Artemis is open for business.. The Artemis is not your typical hotel as it provides emergency medical services to members who engage in criminal activities.
The Nurse (Jodie Foster) runs the facility and with the help of her massive Orderly Everest (Dave Bautista), they ensure that only members get admitted and follow the rules as well as receive state of the art care while in the facility.
Guests at the facility are giving names based on the suite in which they are assigned which involve geographical locales and there are a very strict set of rules they must follow such as no guns, bombs, killing other guests, and so on.
The Hotel Artemis is not a simple stitch and bandage facility as they offer advanced medical services such as Nanites, replacement organ printing, robotic A.I. medical treatment and other services which in 2018 seem like Science Fiction.
Enter Waikiki (Sterling K. Brown), who has tried to leave his criminal past behind him yet was savvy enough to keep paying his membership fees at the Artemis all the while. He and his brother have been injured in a heist and with the city under a deadly riot, they make their way to the Artemis to get treatment and hide out from the chaos outside.
Thanks to their services, the hotel is rarely empty and an Arms Dealer named Acapulco (Charlie Day), and an assassin named Nice (Sofia Boutella), are also in residence. The fact that Nice and Waikiki have a past association makes things a bit interesting as guests are always mindful of those around them even though the strict rules of membership exist to ward off any threats or danger to the guests or staff.
Complications arise when the near capacity hotel is informed that the Wolf King of L.A. (Jeff Goldblum) is en- route. The Nurse opts to follow the rules of first come first served and in doing so enrages his son (Zachary Quinto), who decided to barricade the Hotel to make sure nobody gets in before his father, who incidentally owns the facility.
As if this was not enough of a complication, a police officer from troubled past of The Nurse arrives begging for help which sets a very dangerous chain of events into motion.
The film is a very fresh and entertaining story filled with interesting characters, strong performances, and just enough action to keep the film moving along but yet keeping the focus as a character based drama.
First time Director Drew Pearce gets the most of his cast and has used his script to create a very entertaining and unique film that is well worth a watch. It is so nice to see Jodie Foster showing us once again that she is one of the most gifted actresses of our time as the two-time Oscar winner goes all in to portray a very damaged and troubled character who for what she lacks in glamour; more than makes up for with a determined strength.
I hope this film is a success as I would love to see more stories from the Hotel as I really enjoyed the film from start to finish.
http://sknr.net/2018/06/07/hotel-artemis/
The Nurse (Jodie Foster) runs the facility and with the help of her massive Orderly Everest (Dave Bautista), they ensure that only members get admitted and follow the rules as well as receive state of the art care while in the facility.
Guests at the facility are giving names based on the suite in which they are assigned which involve geographical locales and there are a very strict set of rules they must follow such as no guns, bombs, killing other guests, and so on.
The Hotel Artemis is not a simple stitch and bandage facility as they offer advanced medical services such as Nanites, replacement organ printing, robotic A.I. medical treatment and other services which in 2018 seem like Science Fiction.
Enter Waikiki (Sterling K. Brown), who has tried to leave his criminal past behind him yet was savvy enough to keep paying his membership fees at the Artemis all the while. He and his brother have been injured in a heist and with the city under a deadly riot, they make their way to the Artemis to get treatment and hide out from the chaos outside.
Thanks to their services, the hotel is rarely empty and an Arms Dealer named Acapulco (Charlie Day), and an assassin named Nice (Sofia Boutella), are also in residence. The fact that Nice and Waikiki have a past association makes things a bit interesting as guests are always mindful of those around them even though the strict rules of membership exist to ward off any threats or danger to the guests or staff.
Complications arise when the near capacity hotel is informed that the Wolf King of L.A. (Jeff Goldblum) is en- route. The Nurse opts to follow the rules of first come first served and in doing so enrages his son (Zachary Quinto), who decided to barricade the Hotel to make sure nobody gets in before his father, who incidentally owns the facility.
As if this was not enough of a complication, a police officer from troubled past of The Nurse arrives begging for help which sets a very dangerous chain of events into motion.
The film is a very fresh and entertaining story filled with interesting characters, strong performances, and just enough action to keep the film moving along but yet keeping the focus as a character based drama.
First time Director Drew Pearce gets the most of his cast and has used his script to create a very entertaining and unique film that is well worth a watch. It is so nice to see Jodie Foster showing us once again that she is one of the most gifted actresses of our time as the two-time Oscar winner goes all in to portray a very damaged and troubled character who for what she lacks in glamour; more than makes up for with a determined strength.
I hope this film is a success as I would love to see more stories from the Hotel as I really enjoyed the film from start to finish.
http://sknr.net/2018/06/07/hotel-artemis/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Valkyrie (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Bringing historical films to the screen can be a challenge for a number of reasons. First, the filmmakers often have to condense events that happened over several weeks and months down to a two to three hour format. Secondly, holding the audience can be tricky especially when it covers an event where the outcome is well known. The final and perhaps most important obstacle is that of casting. For every George C. Scott who nailed the iconic figure of Patton there are countless others that have to be kind, not been up to the task.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Guilt trip.
“Passengers” is not a film that you can really talk about in much depth without straying into spoiler territory, so I will break my normal tradition of my reviews being entirely “Spoiler Free” and add a further discussion (but below the Fad Rating, so you are safe ‘til there).
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
The backdrop for “Passengers” is the spaceship “Avalon”, on a 120 year trip taking Earth colonists to the new world of “Homestead 2”. Following an ‘incident’ the story finds two individuals – Jim Preston, played by Chris “Jurassic World” Pratt, and Jennifer “Joy” Lawrence – as the only passengers awake on the automated ship among 5000+ other slumbering souls. It rather goes without saying that with two attractive and bankable Hollywood stars and nothing else to do, the two ‘get it on’. With things on the ship going from bad to worse, the two must work as a team to try to save the ship, crew and fellow passengers from disaster.
As a fan of sci-fi, I’ll start with a positive that the Avalon is a gloriously rendered spacecraft, and many of the scenes of space walking present beautiful cinematography (by Rodrigo Prieto of “The Wolf of Wall Street” and “Argo”). Many of the other special effects in the film – led by special effects supervisor Daniel Sudick, of the Marvel franchise – are spectacularly good, especially one which demonstrates why the lifeguards closed the pool on the International Space Station!
The overall premise of the film is also original and well-conceived, setting up the backdrop for some serious post-watch ethical debate (see spoiler section).
Where the wheels came off for me though is with the script by Jon Spaihts (“Prometheus”, “Doctor Strange”). Some of the dialogue is just appallingly trite, and some of the supposed capabilities of our hero, Preston, are laughable. For example, he possesses an uncanny ability as “an engineer” to open a cabinet of electronics, scan the circuits and say “Nope – that all looks fine”: the next time my washing machine controller packs in, he’s going to be on my speed-dial for sure! And (cue trite line – “every component on the ship has a spare”) Preston immediately finds the required part (curiously, it’s right next to the failing component and not in Bay 67 on cargo deck 327!) and knows how to plug and play it as required.
Chris Pratt; Jennifer Lawrence
Pratt and Lawrence, with Pratt about to debug my washing machine controller just by looking at it.
But, for me, there was one particularly dire point in the script where Spaihts obviously forgets which film he’s writing the scene for and ‘goes superhero’: oh, hang on, Preston doesn’t HAVE any superhero powers! For me, any goodwill the story had built up through to that point get vented into space.
The director is Morten Tyldum, whose “Headhunters” I really enjoyed but who is probably more famous for “The Imitation Game”. Not overawed by the production’s scale, he does a great job of getting good performances out of the rather wooden action hunk that is Chris Pratt and the reliable Oscar-winner Jennifer Lawrence who (apart from one dramatic and emotional scene) the script doesn’t really stretch. Michael Sheen is also a great watch as the witty and dry android bar-tender.
In summary, this was a nice premise with great special effects and gorgeous production design, but frustratingly let down with a weak screenplay. With a better script and another 10% of tweaking, this could have been a real sci-fi classic.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Cinematography (1 more)
Visceral and enormously tense movie experience
Visceral, brilliant and a far from relaxing evening at the movies.
It's already won Best Film at the Golden Globes, and seems set for Oscar glory too. Is Sam Mendes's WW1 epic any good?
"The Man is the Mission" - The similarities with the storyline of Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" are evident. Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) has a brother serving in another battalion of 1,600 men under the command of Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch). The problem is that they are walking into a trap and are about to be slaughtered when they go over the top at dawn. General Erinmore (Colin Firth) picks Blake and his mate Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay) to run a dangerous mission to cross no-mans land, break through the German lines and get the message to Mackenzie to call the attack off.
Famously, the movie uses the "Rope" / "Birdman" technique of appearing to film the action as a single continuous take. This adds enormously to the tension as the duo proceed into danger. Aside from a chance meeting with a French foster mother (Claire Duburcq), the tension is maintained at 110% for the film's duration. Which makes for an exhausting watch! Congratulations by the way to Ms Duburcq for bagging the one female role in the whole movie! This is the anti-dote to the female-heavy movies of 2019!
This is a movie you MUST go to see in the cinema. A star of the show is Roger Deakins' cinematography which is just glorious to look at. The hell-holes (literally) of no-mans land are one thing, but then we get the sweeping landscapes of the green french countryside (actually Wiltshire, just a few miles from where I live!). But the really jaw-dropping cinematography for me came in a flare-lit ruined French town. The effect of a raging fire in the distance and the constantly shifting shadows of the ruins is truly spectacular.
All of this is helped by a great score by Thomas Newman, particularly at this moment in the film. The music suits the action perfectly, which is all you can ask for from a score.
I first noticed George MacKay in one of the lead roles in the Proclaimers musical "Sunshine on Leith" and then again in "Pride": both relatively low-key British films. Here he is catapulted onto the global blockbuster stage, and has nowhere to hide being on-screen literally for the whole running time (and he is running!). He doesn't disappoint: the performance is a stellar one and he holds the drama together.
He's got good support though: small but important supporting roles come from not only Firth and Cumberbatch but also Daniel ("Line of Duty") Mays; Andrew ("Kneel!") Scott; Adrian ("Killing Eve") Scarborough and Richard Madden. But my favourite was a quietly strong (no pun intended) from Mark Strong as a friendly captain with good advice for our hero.
Is the single-shot idea a gimmick? Perhaps. But it is extremely effective at maintaining the momentum. Perhaps to a degree it is a bit of a distraction, since I was constantly looking for the cuts (and very clever they are too). But it is undeniably a marvelous piece of film-making. The choreography involved with getting all of those actors and extras moving in unison for the length of some of those takes would make even Busby Berkeley sweat!
There are also some truly extraordinary action shots: a barn scene (and its dramatic aftermath) is one of the most incredible bits of film-making I've seen not just this year (that's not saying much!) but also last year.
The movie is not for the faint-hearted, with some truly gruesome scenes that stick in the mind afterwards. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man spent most of the movie with her hands over her eyes! But in general, this feels authentic. My own grandfather spent 3 days and nights lying wounded in the French mud, before being rescued... by the Germans. War is hell, and the film reflects that.
Director Sam Mendes - also a Golden Globe winner - only goes a bit Hollywood at one point: a musical interlude where an exhausted Schofield creeps into camp (what? no guards?) and listens to a wistful acappella. The realism felt like it went from 10/10 to 7/10.
This is a top-class piece of movie-making and deserves all its award success. I went in with a bit of an "Oscar-bait" attitude; the one-take gimmick peaking my interest but also stoking my cynicism. Was this to be just a technically fabulous movie that would win the awards but not really entertain? But my cynicism was unfounded. It's a gripping watch and a truly memorable movie.
See it. See it at the cinema. And see it at a cinema with as big a screen and with as great a sound system as possible!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-1917-2019/ )
"The Man is the Mission" - The similarities with the storyline of Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" are evident. Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) has a brother serving in another battalion of 1,600 men under the command of Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch). The problem is that they are walking into a trap and are about to be slaughtered when they go over the top at dawn. General Erinmore (Colin Firth) picks Blake and his mate Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay) to run a dangerous mission to cross no-mans land, break through the German lines and get the message to Mackenzie to call the attack off.
Famously, the movie uses the "Rope" / "Birdman" technique of appearing to film the action as a single continuous take. This adds enormously to the tension as the duo proceed into danger. Aside from a chance meeting with a French foster mother (Claire Duburcq), the tension is maintained at 110% for the film's duration. Which makes for an exhausting watch! Congratulations by the way to Ms Duburcq for bagging the one female role in the whole movie! This is the anti-dote to the female-heavy movies of 2019!
This is a movie you MUST go to see in the cinema. A star of the show is Roger Deakins' cinematography which is just glorious to look at. The hell-holes (literally) of no-mans land are one thing, but then we get the sweeping landscapes of the green french countryside (actually Wiltshire, just a few miles from where I live!). But the really jaw-dropping cinematography for me came in a flare-lit ruined French town. The effect of a raging fire in the distance and the constantly shifting shadows of the ruins is truly spectacular.
All of this is helped by a great score by Thomas Newman, particularly at this moment in the film. The music suits the action perfectly, which is all you can ask for from a score.
I first noticed George MacKay in one of the lead roles in the Proclaimers musical "Sunshine on Leith" and then again in "Pride": both relatively low-key British films. Here he is catapulted onto the global blockbuster stage, and has nowhere to hide being on-screen literally for the whole running time (and he is running!). He doesn't disappoint: the performance is a stellar one and he holds the drama together.
He's got good support though: small but important supporting roles come from not only Firth and Cumberbatch but also Daniel ("Line of Duty") Mays; Andrew ("Kneel!") Scott; Adrian ("Killing Eve") Scarborough and Richard Madden. But my favourite was a quietly strong (no pun intended) from Mark Strong as a friendly captain with good advice for our hero.
Is the single-shot idea a gimmick? Perhaps. But it is extremely effective at maintaining the momentum. Perhaps to a degree it is a bit of a distraction, since I was constantly looking for the cuts (and very clever they are too). But it is undeniably a marvelous piece of film-making. The choreography involved with getting all of those actors and extras moving in unison for the length of some of those takes would make even Busby Berkeley sweat!
There are also some truly extraordinary action shots: a barn scene (and its dramatic aftermath) is one of the most incredible bits of film-making I've seen not just this year (that's not saying much!) but also last year.
The movie is not for the faint-hearted, with some truly gruesome scenes that stick in the mind afterwards. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man spent most of the movie with her hands over her eyes! But in general, this feels authentic. My own grandfather spent 3 days and nights lying wounded in the French mud, before being rescued... by the Germans. War is hell, and the film reflects that.
Director Sam Mendes - also a Golden Globe winner - only goes a bit Hollywood at one point: a musical interlude where an exhausted Schofield creeps into camp (what? no guards?) and listens to a wistful acappella. The realism felt like it went from 10/10 to 7/10.
This is a top-class piece of movie-making and deserves all its award success. I went in with a bit of an "Oscar-bait" attitude; the one-take gimmick peaking my interest but also stoking my cynicism. Was this to be just a technically fabulous movie that would win the awards but not really entertain? But my cynicism was unfounded. It's a gripping watch and a truly memorable movie.
See it. See it at the cinema. And see it at a cinema with as big a screen and with as great a sound system as possible!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-1917-2019/ )
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Wolfman (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
During the golden age of cinematic horror, Lon Chaney terrified audiences with his portrayal of the Wolfman which launched the character as a cultural mainstay.
Over the years there have been countless updates to the tale which ranged from Michael Landon in “I Was a Teenage Werewolf, to the more contemporary “An American Werewolf in London” and “Dog Soldiers”.
With remakes being all the rage in Hollywood, Universal has returned to the original source material to offer an updated version of the original classic.
Set in England near the start of the twentieth century, the film stars Benicio Del Toro as an actor named Lawrence who is summoned home when his brother goes missing. Upon returning to the lavish familial estate, he is greeted by his estranged father, (Sir Anthony Hopkins), who informs him that his brother mutilated body was discovered earlier.
Dismayed by the condition of his brother’s remains, Lawrence decides to stay and get to the bottom of the mystery. When a clue provided by his brother’s fiancé leads him to a Gypsy encampment, Lawrence learns of a curse, but before he can obtain the information he desires, the camp is attacked by a mysterious creature that leaves a horrific path of carnage in its wake and leaves Lawrence badly wounded from a bite.
Lawrence makes an amazing recovery from his wounds and in doing so raises the suspicions of the locals who now see Lawrence as cursed and a threat to their society.
Lawrence has also raised the suspicions of Scotland Yard Inspector, (Hugo Weaving) who is convinced that Lawrence may be a key player in the local horror, as he was confined to an asylum in his childhood following the death of his mother.
At first Lawrence is outraged at the accusations, but when he transforms into a deadly creature and embarks on a deadly killing spree during a full moon, he soon learns a dangerous secret that places not only his life in danger, but endangers all those around him.
In a desperate race against time, Lawrence attempts to get to the root of his troubles and set things right before the next full moon, when his animal side will take over once again.
The film is a stylish update of the original and the cast is strong. Sadly they are given little to do with the by the numbers plot, and spend much of the time looking like they are simply going through the motions which makes it difficult for the audience to develop a deep sympathy or attachment to the characters.
Oscar winner Rick Baker has done some amazing makeup work and the effects of the film are solid. It was reported that the film was delayed so Universal could punch the film up by adding some new fx and sequences.
The final result is a mixed bag as while the film is a nice update on the original, audiences have seen more so many variations of the story over the years it is hard to be surprised by anything in the picture. Despite the best efforts of the creative talent, there is little tension or drama in the film and by the time the finale plays out, many may think they have seen it all before.
Universal has released the 1941 original Lon Cheney version of the film on DVD and for those who like film history; they may gain a new insight into the film by watching the original version prior.
In the end, “The Wolfman” works as a matinee or a DVD rental, but I would not suggest it as a full priced theatrical experience for anyone other than those looking for a piece of nostalgia.
Over the years there have been countless updates to the tale which ranged from Michael Landon in “I Was a Teenage Werewolf, to the more contemporary “An American Werewolf in London” and “Dog Soldiers”.
With remakes being all the rage in Hollywood, Universal has returned to the original source material to offer an updated version of the original classic.
Set in England near the start of the twentieth century, the film stars Benicio Del Toro as an actor named Lawrence who is summoned home when his brother goes missing. Upon returning to the lavish familial estate, he is greeted by his estranged father, (Sir Anthony Hopkins), who informs him that his brother mutilated body was discovered earlier.
Dismayed by the condition of his brother’s remains, Lawrence decides to stay and get to the bottom of the mystery. When a clue provided by his brother’s fiancé leads him to a Gypsy encampment, Lawrence learns of a curse, but before he can obtain the information he desires, the camp is attacked by a mysterious creature that leaves a horrific path of carnage in its wake and leaves Lawrence badly wounded from a bite.
Lawrence makes an amazing recovery from his wounds and in doing so raises the suspicions of the locals who now see Lawrence as cursed and a threat to their society.
Lawrence has also raised the suspicions of Scotland Yard Inspector, (Hugo Weaving) who is convinced that Lawrence may be a key player in the local horror, as he was confined to an asylum in his childhood following the death of his mother.
At first Lawrence is outraged at the accusations, but when he transforms into a deadly creature and embarks on a deadly killing spree during a full moon, he soon learns a dangerous secret that places not only his life in danger, but endangers all those around him.
In a desperate race against time, Lawrence attempts to get to the root of his troubles and set things right before the next full moon, when his animal side will take over once again.
The film is a stylish update of the original and the cast is strong. Sadly they are given little to do with the by the numbers plot, and spend much of the time looking like they are simply going through the motions which makes it difficult for the audience to develop a deep sympathy or attachment to the characters.
Oscar winner Rick Baker has done some amazing makeup work and the effects of the film are solid. It was reported that the film was delayed so Universal could punch the film up by adding some new fx and sequences.
The final result is a mixed bag as while the film is a nice update on the original, audiences have seen more so many variations of the story over the years it is hard to be surprised by anything in the picture. Despite the best efforts of the creative talent, there is little tension or drama in the film and by the time the finale plays out, many may think they have seen it all before.
Universal has released the 1941 original Lon Cheney version of the film on DVD and for those who like film history; they may gain a new insight into the film by watching the original version prior.
In the end, “The Wolfman” works as a matinee or a DVD rental, but I would not suggest it as a full priced theatrical experience for anyone other than those looking for a piece of nostalgia.