Search
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated The Founder (2017) in Movies
Oct 16, 2017 (Updated Oct 16, 2017)
The land of finders keepers, losers weepers
The story of McDonald's pretty much sums up the American dream sadly. A crook of a salesman / businessman Ray Kroc, played by Michael Keaton, comes across two hardworking brothers Mac (John Carroll Lynch) and Dick McDonald (Nick Offerman), who have essentially cracked the idea of how to provide fast food.
They are satisfied with their humble beginnings at a small diner in San Bernardino, but are cajoled by Kroc into franchising - who essentially steals it from under their nose by buying the land that it was based upon. It's really quite tragic because Kroc turned it from an honest operation into the greedy corporation that we have today. That being said, I love Keaton, he's versatile and can play anything from a lovable scallywag to evil incarnate.
While it's not Oscar worthy as such, it's an interesting biopic nevertheless.
They are satisfied with their humble beginnings at a small diner in San Bernardino, but are cajoled by Kroc into franchising - who essentially steals it from under their nose by buying the land that it was based upon. It's really quite tragic because Kroc turned it from an honest operation into the greedy corporation that we have today. That being said, I love Keaton, he's versatile and can play anything from a lovable scallywag to evil incarnate.
While it's not Oscar worthy as such, it's an interesting biopic nevertheless.
8mm Vintage Camera
Photo & Video and Lifestyle
App
AN OSCAR WORTHY APP - 8mm was used by director Malik Bendjelloul in his Oscar-winning film...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020
More of the same
I'm not a massive fan of the John Wick films, I don't hate them but I don't particularly love them either. Mostly because of Keanu Reeves' acting. I know this isnt the kind of film that requires Oscar worthy acting, but even with a limited script Keanu Reeves is pretty dire.
This third instalment is more of the same and picks up from where the second film left off. The fight choreography is pretty decent and it was nice to see more of the concierge, and some new faces in Jerome Flynn, Mark Dacascos and Angelica Huston. Plot wise this is fairly thin but then that's not really a surprise, as the main purpose of this film is the action. It's just a shame that this isnt really anything new and the whole film is on for way too long. There's only so many action scenes they can drag out.
Honestly this just isn't my kind of film. I can appreciate the action elements, but man Keanu Reeves is a terrible actor.
This third instalment is more of the same and picks up from where the second film left off. The fight choreography is pretty decent and it was nice to see more of the concierge, and some new faces in Jerome Flynn, Mark Dacascos and Angelica Huston. Plot wise this is fairly thin but then that's not really a surprise, as the main purpose of this film is the action. It's just a shame that this isnt really anything new and the whole film is on for way too long. There's only so many action scenes they can drag out.
Honestly this just isn't my kind of film. I can appreciate the action elements, but man Keanu Reeves is a terrible actor.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018
All time classic
"I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!"
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lion (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Lost in Train-station.
As January progresses, the quality Oscar films just keep on coming! India’s vibrant and teeming tapestry of life is a natural gift for film-makers, without a word needing to be spoken, and director Garth Davis – in an impressive feature film debut – utilizes that backdrop to the max.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
Britain's Forgotten Film Factory: The Story of Isleworth Studios
Book
The story of Isleworth Studios is essentially that of the British film industry from 1914 to 1952....
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Promising Young Woman (2020) in Movies
Apr 10, 2021
Powerful
Emerald Fennell’s feature length motion picture Directing debut, PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN, is a difficult film to categorize. Is it a Dark Comedy? A RomCom? A family drama? A portrait of a character’s descent? A hard critique of sexism and sexual predators? A revenge fantasy?
The answer is - it is ALL of these and thanks to a wonderful script (by Fennell), strong Direction (again, by Ferrell) and a terrific, Oscar-worthy performance in the lead role (by Carey Mulligan) it is a very effective, very powerful film.
PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN tells the tale of Cassandra who we are introduced to at a bar, obviously drunk, getting picked up (and taken advantage of) by a “nice guy” at the bar. Once back at his place, it is clear that she is NOT drunk and she confronts the “nice guy”.
To say anything else would spoil this wonderful film.
At the center of this film is Carey Mulligan (deservedly) Oscar nominated turn as Cassandra. This is a tortured soul who is looking for some sort of catharsis from a previous trauma and seeks various ways to achieve this. You see an intelligence and sadness in Cassandra at every turn and Mulligan’s performance seemed rooted in reality and was, ultimately, an effective, chillingly and (yes) sad character brought to life. It is the type of performance that I will be rooting for in the Oscar race, it’s that good.
Most of the other characters in this film fleet in and out of Cassandra’s life but all are strong performances, seemingly willing to bring their “A” game to match Mulligan’s performance and the strong script. Kudos to Jennifer Coolidge, Alison Brie, Laverne Cox, Bo Burnham, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (yes, a McLovin’ sighting!), Alfred Molina, Moly Shannon, Connie Britton and, especially, the great Clancy Brown. They all enhanced the film with their performances, working off of Mulligan effectively.
But, credit to all of this must go to Writer/Director Emerald Fennell (probably best known for playing Camilla Parker Bowles in THE CROWN) who's script is smart and thought-provoking and who’s Direction is crisp and sure. She clearly had a certain type of film in her head - the type of film that does not easily lend itself to definition/classification and packs a powerful punch at it’s conclusion. Without spoiling anything, she “ups her game” at the end of this film and I sat in thoughtful silence as the end credits ran.
Fennell is up for the Oscar for both Best Director and Best Original Screenplay and I, for one, would vote for her Screenplay hands-down.
An intriguing film that is sticking with me a few days later…always a mark of quality.
Letter Grade: A
9 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The answer is - it is ALL of these and thanks to a wonderful script (by Fennell), strong Direction (again, by Ferrell) and a terrific, Oscar-worthy performance in the lead role (by Carey Mulligan) it is a very effective, very powerful film.
PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN tells the tale of Cassandra who we are introduced to at a bar, obviously drunk, getting picked up (and taken advantage of) by a “nice guy” at the bar. Once back at his place, it is clear that she is NOT drunk and she confronts the “nice guy”.
To say anything else would spoil this wonderful film.
At the center of this film is Carey Mulligan (deservedly) Oscar nominated turn as Cassandra. This is a tortured soul who is looking for some sort of catharsis from a previous trauma and seeks various ways to achieve this. You see an intelligence and sadness in Cassandra at every turn and Mulligan’s performance seemed rooted in reality and was, ultimately, an effective, chillingly and (yes) sad character brought to life. It is the type of performance that I will be rooting for in the Oscar race, it’s that good.
Most of the other characters in this film fleet in and out of Cassandra’s life but all are strong performances, seemingly willing to bring their “A” game to match Mulligan’s performance and the strong script. Kudos to Jennifer Coolidge, Alison Brie, Laverne Cox, Bo Burnham, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (yes, a McLovin’ sighting!), Alfred Molina, Moly Shannon, Connie Britton and, especially, the great Clancy Brown. They all enhanced the film with their performances, working off of Mulligan effectively.
But, credit to all of this must go to Writer/Director Emerald Fennell (probably best known for playing Camilla Parker Bowles in THE CROWN) who's script is smart and thought-provoking and who’s Direction is crisp and sure. She clearly had a certain type of film in her head - the type of film that does not easily lend itself to definition/classification and packs a powerful punch at it’s conclusion. Without spoiling anything, she “ups her game” at the end of this film and I sat in thoughtful silence as the end credits ran.
Fennell is up for the Oscar for both Best Director and Best Original Screenplay and I, for one, would vote for her Screenplay hands-down.
An intriguing film that is sticking with me a few days later…always a mark of quality.
Letter Grade: A
9 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Banshees of Inisherin (2022) in Movies
Jan 13, 2023
Strong Acting aids Character Study
Back in 2008, Writer/Director Martin McDonagh scored an improbable hit with IN BRUGES, a tale of two hitmen “laying low” in…well…Bruges, Belgium while awaiting instructions from their boss. During this down time these two characters muse about the meanings of life and love in a wonderful, Oscar Nominated, character study.
15 years later, McDonagh does it again with THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN.
Set in the 1920s in the fictional Island of Inisherin (off the coast of Ireland), BANSHEES reunites Writer/Director McDonagh with his two stars of the previous film - Brendan Gleeson (“Mad Eye” Mooney in the Harry Potter films) and Colin Farrell (unrecognizable as The Penguin in the recent BATMAN movie) - and the resultant character study is just as interesting and intriguing to watch in a setting just as interesting…and breath-takingly beautifully bleak.
McDonagh, more than likely, will be nominated (as he was with IN BRUGES) for his screenplay for this film - it IS Oscar worthy - but for me, he was better as the Director of this character study, pointing his camera with a keen eye and surety in what he wanted to show all the while letting the performers and the countryside tell the story.
Both lead performers (and the Supporting Actors) are perfectly cast. Farrell, as Padraic,is the protagonist - a simple man who just wants to be able to go to the pub everyday and have conversation with his best friend, Colm (Gleeson) who, one day, proclaims that he no longer wants to be friends with Padraic. Padraic, then spends the rest of the film trying to understand why this is so, what happened and what he can do to make amends.
Farrell will earn an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the simple (but not simple-minded) Padraic who is having a hard time grappling with deeper issues seeping into his simple life. Farrell has really grown into a fine actor and he (at this point in time) has to be considered on of the FrontRunners for the Best Actor Oscar for his work in this film.
Just as good is Gleeson as Colm, the recalcitrant, stoic friend who stubbornly wants nothing to do with Padraic. In lesser hands, this character could have come off as “one-note” being, simply, an immovable object in the way of Padraic’s irresistible force, but in Gleeson’s skilled hands, Colm has layers and depth that seep out through the cracks of his stoney facade. I would not be surprised if Gleeson, too, is nominated for an Oscar (probably in the Supporting category).
These two are capably assisted by Kerry Condon (Stacey Ehrmantraut in BETTER CAUL SAUL) and Barry Keoghn (DUNKIRK) as Padraic’s sister and a friend of both Padraic and Colm (respectively). Both bring their “A” games to this film and truly show the meaning of the term “Supporting” in “Supporting Performance”.
Special mention needs to be made for the Cinematography of Ben Davis (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY) who brings beauty to the bleak, stark and harsh Irish countryside. This cinematography is, actually, another character of this piece and brings strong emotional support to the performances.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever see, THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN is an interesting, intriguing - and beautifully shot - character study that will stay with you long after the film ends.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
15 years later, McDonagh does it again with THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN.
Set in the 1920s in the fictional Island of Inisherin (off the coast of Ireland), BANSHEES reunites Writer/Director McDonagh with his two stars of the previous film - Brendan Gleeson (“Mad Eye” Mooney in the Harry Potter films) and Colin Farrell (unrecognizable as The Penguin in the recent BATMAN movie) - and the resultant character study is just as interesting and intriguing to watch in a setting just as interesting…and breath-takingly beautifully bleak.
McDonagh, more than likely, will be nominated (as he was with IN BRUGES) for his screenplay for this film - it IS Oscar worthy - but for me, he was better as the Director of this character study, pointing his camera with a keen eye and surety in what he wanted to show all the while letting the performers and the countryside tell the story.
Both lead performers (and the Supporting Actors) are perfectly cast. Farrell, as Padraic,is the protagonist - a simple man who just wants to be able to go to the pub everyday and have conversation with his best friend, Colm (Gleeson) who, one day, proclaims that he no longer wants to be friends with Padraic. Padraic, then spends the rest of the film trying to understand why this is so, what happened and what he can do to make amends.
Farrell will earn an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the simple (but not simple-minded) Padraic who is having a hard time grappling with deeper issues seeping into his simple life. Farrell has really grown into a fine actor and he (at this point in time) has to be considered on of the FrontRunners for the Best Actor Oscar for his work in this film.
Just as good is Gleeson as Colm, the recalcitrant, stoic friend who stubbornly wants nothing to do with Padraic. In lesser hands, this character could have come off as “one-note” being, simply, an immovable object in the way of Padraic’s irresistible force, but in Gleeson’s skilled hands, Colm has layers and depth that seep out through the cracks of his stoney facade. I would not be surprised if Gleeson, too, is nominated for an Oscar (probably in the Supporting category).
These two are capably assisted by Kerry Condon (Stacey Ehrmantraut in BETTER CAUL SAUL) and Barry Keoghn (DUNKIRK) as Padraic’s sister and a friend of both Padraic and Colm (respectively). Both bring their “A” games to this film and truly show the meaning of the term “Supporting” in “Supporting Performance”.
Special mention needs to be made for the Cinematography of Ben Davis (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY) who brings beauty to the bleak, stark and harsh Irish countryside. This cinematography is, actually, another character of this piece and brings strong emotional support to the performances.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever see, THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN is an interesting, intriguing - and beautifully shot - character study that will stay with you long after the film ends.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Pain and Glory (2019) in Movies
Feb 3, 2020
Well acted by Banderas and Cruz
One of the reasons that I go on the trek this time every year to catch all the Oscar nominees in the all of the "Major" categories is that it forces me to catch films and have movie going experiences that I most likely would have elected to skip. This is especially true with Foreign Language films, like Spanish Director Pedro Almodovar's semi-biographical musing, PAIN AND GLORY.
Antonio Banderas, rightfully, has earned his (surpisingly) first Oscar Nomination for portraying a somewhat fictionalized version of the Spanish auteur - a once prolific film Director at the tail end of his career coming to terms with who he is, the physical pain he is currently feeling as his body ages and the reverent feelings and fond memories he has for his mother.
It is a strong, subtle and nuanced performance by Banderas - one that is in stark contrast to the bravura and panache that he has shown previously in such films as ZORRO, ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO and as the voice of Puss 'N Boots in the SHREK films. Banderas' acting his been getting better with age and while I do not think he'll win the Oscar, I do think that this is not going to be the only Oscar nomination he will receive in his lifetime.
I was happy to see Banderas work in his native Spanish language - the same goes for Penelope Cruz who plays Banderas' character mother in flashbacks. I recently saw Cruz working in Spanish in 2018's EVERYBODY KNOWS and was just as transfixed by her performance in this film - worthy of a nomination. She is very good in English Language films, but she elevates to a different level when she works in Spanish. I would have loved to see a whole film about her character - and not just get a few scenes in flashback form.
Watching these 2 performances was well worth the time of watching this film, and that is good for I did not connect with the themes, struggles and plot set forth by Almodovar.
PAIN AND GLORY is Almodovar's semi-biographical meditation on life - and as such is a little to "navel gazing" for my tastes. When I watch these types of films either I get sucked into the narrative and characters (like I did with Alfonso Cuaron's ROMA last year) or...I do not.
And...unfortunately for PAIN AND GLORY...I did not. It is a good picture with 2 really good performances but one I was kept at a distance from and one that I never really connected with.
Come for the meditation, stay for the performances. And...PLEASE...if you watch this, DO NOT watch the dubbed version. Listen to the performances of Banderas and Cruz in their native Spanish and read the subtitles.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Antonio Banderas, rightfully, has earned his (surpisingly) first Oscar Nomination for portraying a somewhat fictionalized version of the Spanish auteur - a once prolific film Director at the tail end of his career coming to terms with who he is, the physical pain he is currently feeling as his body ages and the reverent feelings and fond memories he has for his mother.
It is a strong, subtle and nuanced performance by Banderas - one that is in stark contrast to the bravura and panache that he has shown previously in such films as ZORRO, ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO and as the voice of Puss 'N Boots in the SHREK films. Banderas' acting his been getting better with age and while I do not think he'll win the Oscar, I do think that this is not going to be the only Oscar nomination he will receive in his lifetime.
I was happy to see Banderas work in his native Spanish language - the same goes for Penelope Cruz who plays Banderas' character mother in flashbacks. I recently saw Cruz working in Spanish in 2018's EVERYBODY KNOWS and was just as transfixed by her performance in this film - worthy of a nomination. She is very good in English Language films, but she elevates to a different level when she works in Spanish. I would have loved to see a whole film about her character - and not just get a few scenes in flashback form.
Watching these 2 performances was well worth the time of watching this film, and that is good for I did not connect with the themes, struggles and plot set forth by Almodovar.
PAIN AND GLORY is Almodovar's semi-biographical meditation on life - and as such is a little to "navel gazing" for my tastes. When I watch these types of films either I get sucked into the narrative and characters (like I did with Alfonso Cuaron's ROMA last year) or...I do not.
And...unfortunately for PAIN AND GLORY...I did not. It is a good picture with 2 really good performances but one I was kept at a distance from and one that I never really connected with.
Come for the meditation, stay for the performances. And...PLEASE...if you watch this, DO NOT watch the dubbed version. Listen to the performances of Banderas and Cruz in their native Spanish and read the subtitles.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020
Mellow paced - nothing special
89 year old Director/Actor Clint Eastwood has mellowed with age. He seems at peace with himself and prefers to work at a pace that he sets. His latest Directing effort - RICHARD JEWELL - has that sort of mellowness. It takes it time to tell it's story with no real urgency to it.
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) Oct 18, 2017
Jesusjack (0 KP) Mar 20, 2018