Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
GREAT chemistry between Bale and Damon
Most people are attending - or staying away from - the new James Mangold film, FORD v FERRARI because it is a "race car flick". But to label it as just that is doing a disservice to this film, so if that is what is keeping you away from this movie, think again, for this film is much more than a race car film.
It is, at it's core, a film about friendship and loyalty in the face of adversity and is a very serious contender for multiple awards this Oscar season.
A long gestating film project (Director Mangold first came across this property in 2010), FORD v FERRARI tells the tale of the Ford Motor Company's attempt to unseat the Italian car company, Ferrari, as an elite race car producer by defeating it on it's own turf - the 24 hour race at LeMans.
Entrusted to make this dream a reality by Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is (now) legendary race car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) who turns to his reckless friend - and top race car driver - Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help put this project over the top.
Will this duo succeed? Will Ford topple Ferrari? Can Shelby help smooth the rough waters that the temperamental Miles will, inevitably, create? What do you think?
But it is the journey - and not the destination - that is the joy of this film, for under the watchful, steady eye of veteran Director Mangold (WALK THE LINE) this film is much, much more than the cliched journey of a maverick bucking the system to, ultimately, prevail. It is a study of friendship and loyalty under intense pressure and Mangold finds the right balance between showing hardcore racing and the friendship and camaraderie of Miles and Shelby.
Mangold, of course, smartly knew that the success (or failure) of this film will rest on the chemistry between the two leads of this film - and he cast them well. Matt Damon brings his usual charm and easy-going attitude to Carroll Shelby, making him the heart and anchor of this film - we see the events unfold through his eyes - and he is a an easy stand-in for the audience during the proceedings and is someone that we are happy, and comfortable, to spend the 2 1/2 hours of this film with.
This is good, for he is strongly complimented - and challenged - by the hard intensity that Christian Bale brings to his portrayal of Ken Miles. This real-life racing car legend is driven (pun intended) to excellence, and does not suffer fools gladly. We spend a good amount of time in this film with Miles staring intently out the window of his race car and no one does smoldering, staring intensity better than Bale. This is another Oscar-worthy performance by an actor who has made a career of Oscar-worthy performances and has me asking - is he the finest actor working today? He certainly is in the conversation.
Bale and Damon play off each other very well, their chemistry seems real and we believe that these are 2 old friends working together. This is the first pairing of these two, and based on these results, I would guess that we'll be seeing these two in a film together again.
They are joined by strong supporting work by the likes of Letts, Jon Bernthal (portraying Lee Iacocca) and Caitriona Balfe (as Miles wife, Mollie). Only Josh Lucas (as the a-hole antagonist of the film) fares less well as his character is written in one note and Lucas just plays that note.
The racing scenes are well done - giving us the visceral intensity of what it must be like in the car, and in the pits, of a major race experience. But it is the friendship between Miles and Shelby that really is the engine that drives this film.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
It is, at it's core, a film about friendship and loyalty in the face of adversity and is a very serious contender for multiple awards this Oscar season.
A long gestating film project (Director Mangold first came across this property in 2010), FORD v FERRARI tells the tale of the Ford Motor Company's attempt to unseat the Italian car company, Ferrari, as an elite race car producer by defeating it on it's own turf - the 24 hour race at LeMans.
Entrusted to make this dream a reality by Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is (now) legendary race car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) who turns to his reckless friend - and top race car driver - Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help put this project over the top.
Will this duo succeed? Will Ford topple Ferrari? Can Shelby help smooth the rough waters that the temperamental Miles will, inevitably, create? What do you think?
But it is the journey - and not the destination - that is the joy of this film, for under the watchful, steady eye of veteran Director Mangold (WALK THE LINE) this film is much, much more than the cliched journey of a maverick bucking the system to, ultimately, prevail. It is a study of friendship and loyalty under intense pressure and Mangold finds the right balance between showing hardcore racing and the friendship and camaraderie of Miles and Shelby.
Mangold, of course, smartly knew that the success (or failure) of this film will rest on the chemistry between the two leads of this film - and he cast them well. Matt Damon brings his usual charm and easy-going attitude to Carroll Shelby, making him the heart and anchor of this film - we see the events unfold through his eyes - and he is a an easy stand-in for the audience during the proceedings and is someone that we are happy, and comfortable, to spend the 2 1/2 hours of this film with.
This is good, for he is strongly complimented - and challenged - by the hard intensity that Christian Bale brings to his portrayal of Ken Miles. This real-life racing car legend is driven (pun intended) to excellence, and does not suffer fools gladly. We spend a good amount of time in this film with Miles staring intently out the window of his race car and no one does smoldering, staring intensity better than Bale. This is another Oscar-worthy performance by an actor who has made a career of Oscar-worthy performances and has me asking - is he the finest actor working today? He certainly is in the conversation.
Bale and Damon play off each other very well, their chemistry seems real and we believe that these are 2 old friends working together. This is the first pairing of these two, and based on these results, I would guess that we'll be seeing these two in a film together again.
They are joined by strong supporting work by the likes of Letts, Jon Bernthal (portraying Lee Iacocca) and Caitriona Balfe (as Miles wife, Mollie). Only Josh Lucas (as the a-hole antagonist of the film) fares less well as his character is written in one note and Lucas just plays that note.
The racing scenes are well done - giving us the visceral intensity of what it must be like in the car, and in the pits, of a major race experience. But it is the friendship between Miles and Shelby that really is the engine that drives this film.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Roads Not Taken (2020) in Movies
Sep 15, 2020
Javier Bardem and Elle Fanning act their socks off (1 more)
Robbie Ryan cinematography is Oscar worthy
Pain and not a lot of Glory.
If you like your movies action packed you are going to dislike this movie. If you like light and uplifting stories you are going to positively loathe this one! For everyone else, "The Roads Not Taken" is a very thought-provoking piece of film-making from writer/director Sally Potter that I have a lot of respect for. Even more so, since I learned that the film is based on the director's time caring for her now deceased brother Nic, diagnosed with early onset dementia in 2010.
It's not a promising premise. "The Roads Not Taken" concerns a New Yorker with dementia being taking to the dentist and the opticians. Gripped yet? Nope... didn't think so. But stay with me here.
Elle Fanning plays Molly, daughter of the almost catatonic Leo (Javier Bardem) who is receiving a lot of support to stay in his own home. As his daughter assists him on his trip to his medical appointments, he is only about 10% 'there'. Glassy-eyed and almost incomprehensible, his utterances are often taken to refer to his present experiences. But actually, he's 90% somewhere else, revisiting two key episodes in his past life and reacting in the real world to what's happening in his dreams.
As he relives 'the roads not taken' we can piece together the elements of a life that's lived and - perhaps - lay out some elements that might have contributed to his mental decline in later life.
Before we plunge into the doom and gloom of the story, there was one moment of levity for me in the opening titles. I commented in my review of "The Farewell" that the company 'dog-tags' at the start of the film reminded me of a famous Family Guy comic moment. But this is kindergarten level compared to this movie. I assume Sally Potter must have tapped her complete phone contacts list to raise the funding for this one! Since I counted FOURTEEN different production companies referenced! Is this a record?
As you enter later life, it's common for many of us to suffer a significant source of stress. Sometimes - if you're lucky - four sources of stress. The reason? You stop worrying about your kids as much and start worrying about your aged parents and in-laws. Like heating up a frog in water, it's often imperceptible how much stress you are actually carrying with that until the last of the relatives 'shuffles off this mortal coil'. Within the grief, there's also a source of guilty relief in there somewhere. Such is the maelstrom that young Molly is in - with knobs on - given the disability of Leo. As a professional in her 20's, she is also having the juggle this responsibility with progressing her career.
It's a bit early in this turbulent year to talk of Oscar nominations. But for me, there are three standout performances in this movie:
1) Javier Bardem: what an acting masterclass! As with Daniel Day-Lewis's win in 1990 for "My Left Foot", the Academy loves a disability-based performance. I haven't seen much Oscar-buzz about this performance, but I'd personally throw his hat into the ring, for at least my long-list;
2) Elle Fanning: this young lady has been in movies since the age of 2, but rose to stardom with "Super 8". She's building a formidable filmography behind her. Here she matches Bardem shot-for-shot in the acting stakes: a caring daughter being emotionally torn apart; always needing to be in two places at the same time (as nicely positioned by the cryptic ending). A first Oscar-nomination perhaps?
3) Robbie Ryan: with an Oscar-nom previously for "The Favourite", could another one follow for this? For this is a beautiful film to look at, despite its downbeat story. There are some drop-dead gorgeous shots. One in particular is where a sun-lit Fanning has a "Marilyn Monroe subway skirt moment" at a window (with her hair being blown, I should add). Glorious. And all of the Mexican/Greek scenes (all Spain I believe) are deliciously lit and coloured.
"The Roads Not Taken" is an intelligent watch for sure, and reminiscent to me of Almodovar's "Pain and Glory": another artist's life lived again in flashback. If anything, this one is more unstructured in setting out a box of jigsaw pieces that you need to piece together through the unreliable narrator's random memories. ("Ooh, look - here's a bit with Laura Linney on it... ah, that goes there"; "So that's who Selma Hayek is"; etc.) But, as with a jigsaw, staying the course and putting the last pieces in is a very satisfying experience.
There's also a really feelgood scene in a taxi rank that restores your faith in the underlying goodness of people.... and a rant by a "Trump-voter" that gives you quite the opposite view!
Where I found some frustration was in the lack of backstory for Molly. She seems to be painted rather two-dimensionally. Yes - young with job, but of her personal life we see nothing. Adding another dimension (a young family for example) would have added yet another set of stresses to the mix. Leo's flashbacks are also focused on just two time periods. More wide-ranging reminiscences might have broadened the drama.
But I personally found "The Roads Not Taken" intensely moving. I'm not sure I could say I "enjoyed" it, but it is a worthy watch and has left me with thought-provoking images to chew on.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/15/the-roads-not-taken-2020-pain-and-very-little-glory/.)
It's not a promising premise. "The Roads Not Taken" concerns a New Yorker with dementia being taking to the dentist and the opticians. Gripped yet? Nope... didn't think so. But stay with me here.
Elle Fanning plays Molly, daughter of the almost catatonic Leo (Javier Bardem) who is receiving a lot of support to stay in his own home. As his daughter assists him on his trip to his medical appointments, he is only about 10% 'there'. Glassy-eyed and almost incomprehensible, his utterances are often taken to refer to his present experiences. But actually, he's 90% somewhere else, revisiting two key episodes in his past life and reacting in the real world to what's happening in his dreams.
As he relives 'the roads not taken' we can piece together the elements of a life that's lived and - perhaps - lay out some elements that might have contributed to his mental decline in later life.
Before we plunge into the doom and gloom of the story, there was one moment of levity for me in the opening titles. I commented in my review of "The Farewell" that the company 'dog-tags' at the start of the film reminded me of a famous Family Guy comic moment. But this is kindergarten level compared to this movie. I assume Sally Potter must have tapped her complete phone contacts list to raise the funding for this one! Since I counted FOURTEEN different production companies referenced! Is this a record?
As you enter later life, it's common for many of us to suffer a significant source of stress. Sometimes - if you're lucky - four sources of stress. The reason? You stop worrying about your kids as much and start worrying about your aged parents and in-laws. Like heating up a frog in water, it's often imperceptible how much stress you are actually carrying with that until the last of the relatives 'shuffles off this mortal coil'. Within the grief, there's also a source of guilty relief in there somewhere. Such is the maelstrom that young Molly is in - with knobs on - given the disability of Leo. As a professional in her 20's, she is also having the juggle this responsibility with progressing her career.
It's a bit early in this turbulent year to talk of Oscar nominations. But for me, there are three standout performances in this movie:
1) Javier Bardem: what an acting masterclass! As with Daniel Day-Lewis's win in 1990 for "My Left Foot", the Academy loves a disability-based performance. I haven't seen much Oscar-buzz about this performance, but I'd personally throw his hat into the ring, for at least my long-list;
2) Elle Fanning: this young lady has been in movies since the age of 2, but rose to stardom with "Super 8". She's building a formidable filmography behind her. Here she matches Bardem shot-for-shot in the acting stakes: a caring daughter being emotionally torn apart; always needing to be in two places at the same time (as nicely positioned by the cryptic ending). A first Oscar-nomination perhaps?
3) Robbie Ryan: with an Oscar-nom previously for "The Favourite", could another one follow for this? For this is a beautiful film to look at, despite its downbeat story. There are some drop-dead gorgeous shots. One in particular is where a sun-lit Fanning has a "Marilyn Monroe subway skirt moment" at a window (with her hair being blown, I should add). Glorious. And all of the Mexican/Greek scenes (all Spain I believe) are deliciously lit and coloured.
"The Roads Not Taken" is an intelligent watch for sure, and reminiscent to me of Almodovar's "Pain and Glory": another artist's life lived again in flashback. If anything, this one is more unstructured in setting out a box of jigsaw pieces that you need to piece together through the unreliable narrator's random memories. ("Ooh, look - here's a bit with Laura Linney on it... ah, that goes there"; "So that's who Selma Hayek is"; etc.) But, as with a jigsaw, staying the course and putting the last pieces in is a very satisfying experience.
There's also a really feelgood scene in a taxi rank that restores your faith in the underlying goodness of people.... and a rant by a "Trump-voter" that gives you quite the opposite view!
Where I found some frustration was in the lack of backstory for Molly. She seems to be painted rather two-dimensionally. Yes - young with job, but of her personal life we see nothing. Adding another dimension (a young family for example) would have added yet another set of stresses to the mix. Leo's flashbacks are also focused on just two time periods. More wide-ranging reminiscences might have broadened the drama.
But I personally found "The Roads Not Taken" intensely moving. I'm not sure I could say I "enjoyed" it, but it is a worthy watch and has left me with thought-provoking images to chew on.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/15/the-roads-not-taken-2020-pain-and-very-little-glory/.)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 4, 2019
Visuals (1 more)
Action
A true monster of a movie!
This sequel to the 2014 reboot of Godzilla is an enjoyable movie. It doesn't follow the common trend of "less is more", not wasting any time showing you the visually stunning monsters in all their glory.
The plot is simple enough: Godzilla has been absent since the last movie five years ago. More monsters (called Titans here) have been discovered around the world and the mysterious Monarch group are studying them. Needless to say, it doesn't take long for things to take a turn for the worst, and when a big, bad monster is revived and starts destroying things, our old pal Godzilla returns.
This is one of those movies where you leave your brain and the real world at the door, and just enjoy it for what it is. There's a lot of criticism aimed at modern movies for overusing CGI, but this film needs it and uses it very well. The monsters look incredible, and genuinely look massive. The battles and subsequent destruction look amazing, too. It's a real treat for the eyes, packed with many WOW! moments.
Is it perfect? No. As graphically stunning as it is, the plot leaves a lot to be desired. Riddled with tiny (and the odd large) plot holes, it's a pretty basic storyline. But then, it doesn't need to be overly complex in a movie like this one.
No one comes to a Godzilla movie expecting Oscar-worthy performances and Aaron Sorkin-esque screenplays. They come to be entertained. And you will be here. Well worth stepping away from life for a couple of hours. Don't forget your popcorn!
The plot is simple enough: Godzilla has been absent since the last movie five years ago. More monsters (called Titans here) have been discovered around the world and the mysterious Monarch group are studying them. Needless to say, it doesn't take long for things to take a turn for the worst, and when a big, bad monster is revived and starts destroying things, our old pal Godzilla returns.
This is one of those movies where you leave your brain and the real world at the door, and just enjoy it for what it is. There's a lot of criticism aimed at modern movies for overusing CGI, but this film needs it and uses it very well. The monsters look incredible, and genuinely look massive. The battles and subsequent destruction look amazing, too. It's a real treat for the eyes, packed with many WOW! moments.
Is it perfect? No. As graphically stunning as it is, the plot leaves a lot to be desired. Riddled with tiny (and the odd large) plot holes, it's a pretty basic storyline. But then, it doesn't need to be overly complex in a movie like this one.
No one comes to a Godzilla movie expecting Oscar-worthy performances and Aaron Sorkin-esque screenplays. They come to be entertained. And you will be here. Well worth stepping away from life for a couple of hours. Don't forget your popcorn!
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Statham vs Massive Prehistoric Shark
Before I start my review, I think I should add a quick disclaimer. I knew fine well that I wasn’t walking into a Oscar-worthy, perfect film as soon as I booked my ticket for The Meg. With the exception of Jaws, how many shark films have actually been award worthy? We’ve seen a huge boom in shark popularity ranging from plausible to the downright stupid (yes Sharknado, I’m looking at you and your buddies). But despite my already low expectations, I still have a fair amount of criticism for what I saw.
My biggest problem from the get-go is that we get no explanation for why the megalodon, a shark that’s been extinct for 2 million years has suddenly came back to gobble people up. How did it survive? Why is it there? Even the most low budget, downright awful creature features try to offer some silly scientific explanation for why the antagonist exists at all. It’s dumb, but hey, at least they tried. The Meg makes no effort to try and explain anything which was frustrating to me. The most we got was “Oh hey, there’s this really big creature that we thought was extinct but it’s actually living down in the Marianas trench – surprise!”. This might be a sufficient explanation for some, but not for me.
Having said that, was it an entertaining film? Sure. I did really enjoy the visuals especially and thought they did an excellent job with the CGI and actually bringing this creature and the underwater facility to life. Cinematically it’s a stunning film to look at, and despite all this implausibility, it still transports you to this huge, unknown, underwater world for the duration. I’ve seen some terrible CGI in my time, but thankfully The Meg doesn’t fall into this category. These visuals make up for the cringe-worthy script and lines that were supposed to be serious and instead made me burst out laughing. But let’s be honest, I’d be disappointed if the script wasn’t this god-awful. You walk into a film like this expecting to face palm a couple of times, don’t you?
I would’ve liked a bit more brutality as the Meg is supposed to be a terrifying, monster shark that’s approximately 60 feet in length. (The Great White shark can grow up to 20 feet for comparison). Despite it’s 12 rating I’m sure more blood and violence would’ve been acceptable as Jaws managed to get away with it back in 1975. Who could forget that scene where an unfortunate fellow slides down into the shark’s mouth? Brutal. Whilst I appreciate this isn’t necessarily a horror film, it actually needed more violence and less filler scenes in my opinion. It’s not often that I ask for more violence,` especially in an action film, yet here we are.
To conclude, The Meg is a fun way to spend your evening, but it ultimately felt like a high budget B-Movie. The actors tried their best with the script they had, but even people like Jason Statham and Ruby Rose couldn’t make it better. (what was up with Statham’s accent, by the way?!). If you’re wanting a silly shark film with more substance, I’d recommend Deep Blue Sea instead
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/19/statham-vs-massive-prehistoric-shark-my-thoughts-on-the-meg/
My biggest problem from the get-go is that we get no explanation for why the megalodon, a shark that’s been extinct for 2 million years has suddenly came back to gobble people up. How did it survive? Why is it there? Even the most low budget, downright awful creature features try to offer some silly scientific explanation for why the antagonist exists at all. It’s dumb, but hey, at least they tried. The Meg makes no effort to try and explain anything which was frustrating to me. The most we got was “Oh hey, there’s this really big creature that we thought was extinct but it’s actually living down in the Marianas trench – surprise!”. This might be a sufficient explanation for some, but not for me.
Having said that, was it an entertaining film? Sure. I did really enjoy the visuals especially and thought they did an excellent job with the CGI and actually bringing this creature and the underwater facility to life. Cinematically it’s a stunning film to look at, and despite all this implausibility, it still transports you to this huge, unknown, underwater world for the duration. I’ve seen some terrible CGI in my time, but thankfully The Meg doesn’t fall into this category. These visuals make up for the cringe-worthy script and lines that were supposed to be serious and instead made me burst out laughing. But let’s be honest, I’d be disappointed if the script wasn’t this god-awful. You walk into a film like this expecting to face palm a couple of times, don’t you?
I would’ve liked a bit more brutality as the Meg is supposed to be a terrifying, monster shark that’s approximately 60 feet in length. (The Great White shark can grow up to 20 feet for comparison). Despite it’s 12 rating I’m sure more blood and violence would’ve been acceptable as Jaws managed to get away with it back in 1975. Who could forget that scene where an unfortunate fellow slides down into the shark’s mouth? Brutal. Whilst I appreciate this isn’t necessarily a horror film, it actually needed more violence and less filler scenes in my opinion. It’s not often that I ask for more violence,` especially in an action film, yet here we are.
To conclude, The Meg is a fun way to spend your evening, but it ultimately felt like a high budget B-Movie. The actors tried their best with the script they had, but even people like Jason Statham and Ruby Rose couldn’t make it better. (what was up with Statham’s accent, by the way?!). If you’re wanting a silly shark film with more substance, I’d recommend Deep Blue Sea instead
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/19/statham-vs-massive-prehistoric-shark-my-thoughts-on-the-meg/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Where to begin with Luc Besson? The masterpiece of Leon aside, he is notorious for creating beautifully bonkers visual treats that twist and turn like a monkey on cocaine, making as much sense. This comic book adaptation starts well, with some jaw dropping CG design and a decent concept – it truly is a dreamscape of glorious colour and imagination rarely matched… but so is Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and we all know how awful that is.
He just doesn’t have the knack with story and character in the same way as he does with the visuals, often leaving you with the impression that even the actors are confused by what is going on, and why, and what the hell is coming out of their mouths as an excuse for dialogue.
I like Dane De Haan, he has shown a lot of promise in some valiant near misses, such as Chronicle, The Place Beyond the Pines and The Cure For Wellness – three films I enjoyed, with reservations, that were better for him being in them – but he has not quite made it to the A-list as yet. Here, opposite the gorgeously cute but somehow hollow presence Cara Delevingne, he is burdened by a love story with no chemistry and some cringe-worthy banter. As the film ultimately focuses and depends on the likability of this relationship it inevitably fails; melting into comic book kookiness that loses a lot in translation.
I almost found myself hating them and wishing they would die painfully so the film could end, but not quite as much as I hated how fundamentally terrible Clive Owen was as the villain – I mean, so awkward and awful it made how uncomfortable Harrison Ford seemed in Ender’s Game look like an Oscar worthy performance. Risible. Inexcusable. Inexplicable. But that’s Besson where let loose into the realm of full sci-fi.
One corner of joy was Rihanna as the shape-shifting Bubble, who showed a charm and talent for film acting I hadn’t quite expected, and how much fun Ethan Hawke had dressing up and hamming it up as Jolly, her pimp. But essentially, you’d be better off turning the sound off completely and just drinking in the spectrum of imaginative design on display. A film that may hold some cult status into the future, and one small children may get oddly addicted to, but as a functioning and satisfying cinematic story… just, no.
He just doesn’t have the knack with story and character in the same way as he does with the visuals, often leaving you with the impression that even the actors are confused by what is going on, and why, and what the hell is coming out of their mouths as an excuse for dialogue.
I like Dane De Haan, he has shown a lot of promise in some valiant near misses, such as Chronicle, The Place Beyond the Pines and The Cure For Wellness – three films I enjoyed, with reservations, that were better for him being in them – but he has not quite made it to the A-list as yet. Here, opposite the gorgeously cute but somehow hollow presence Cara Delevingne, he is burdened by a love story with no chemistry and some cringe-worthy banter. As the film ultimately focuses and depends on the likability of this relationship it inevitably fails; melting into comic book kookiness that loses a lot in translation.
I almost found myself hating them and wishing they would die painfully so the film could end, but not quite as much as I hated how fundamentally terrible Clive Owen was as the villain – I mean, so awkward and awful it made how uncomfortable Harrison Ford seemed in Ender’s Game look like an Oscar worthy performance. Risible. Inexcusable. Inexplicable. But that’s Besson where let loose into the realm of full sci-fi.
One corner of joy was Rihanna as the shape-shifting Bubble, who showed a charm and talent for film acting I hadn’t quite expected, and how much fun Ethan Hawke had dressing up and hamming it up as Jolly, her pimp. But essentially, you’d be better off turning the sound off completely and just drinking in the spectrum of imaginative design on display. A film that may hold some cult status into the future, and one small children may get oddly addicted to, but as a functioning and satisfying cinematic story… just, no.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Mar 17, 2018
Not a bad start to this series
I have a confession to make, I have not seen the Angelina Jolie Lara Croft films, nor am I all that familiar with the video games that have spawned these movies, so it is with a fresh perspective that I judge how good (or bad) this film is.
And you know what? It's pretty good.
Starring Alicia Vikander, TOMB RAIDER is the origin story of how Lara Croft becomes a...ahem...Tomb Raider. This is the first starring role in a big "tent pole" film for her and she holds the center of the story quite well. Best known as the Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress in THE DANISH GIRL (which I feel was a consolation prize for her from the Academy as a way of apologizing for not even nominating her for her Oscar-worthy performance in EX MACHINA), TOMB RAIDER transforms Ms. Vikander into a viable action star. Her Lara Croft is not a "super-hero" who is impervious to pain, rather, she is a real person (a tough one, I'll admit) but when she gets hurt, she feels it.
Doing everything but twirling his mustache is Walton Goggins as Mathias Vogel a rival Tomb Raider looking to raid the same tomb.
Why are they looking for this tomb? Does it matter? Nope. The fun is in the journey - and what fun there is. Norwegian Director Roar Uthaug (THE WAVE) keeps the action moving swiftly, jumping from one clue to another and one stunt to another, rarely slowing down for the audience to think - and that's a good thing, because as I'm thinking about this film a day later, I'm beginning to punch some pretty big holes in the plot. But...that doesn't matter because watching Croft/Vikander get herself out of trouble is entertaining.
Also shining in this film is Daniel Wu as Lu Ren, who's father, Lu Ren, disappeared chasing the same tomb as Croft's father (Dominic West). Ren and Crofft team up to race Vogel to the tomb.
Along for the ride in smaller-ish roles - in what appears to be the first film of a series - are such stalwarts as Nick Frost (uncredited), Jaime Winstone, Derek Jacobi and Kristen ScottThomas. All of whom must have been promised larger roles in later films in this series.
A solid start to the series. I, for one, will look forward to the next tomb that Lara Croft raids.
Letter Grade B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And you know what? It's pretty good.
Starring Alicia Vikander, TOMB RAIDER is the origin story of how Lara Croft becomes a...ahem...Tomb Raider. This is the first starring role in a big "tent pole" film for her and she holds the center of the story quite well. Best known as the Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress in THE DANISH GIRL (which I feel was a consolation prize for her from the Academy as a way of apologizing for not even nominating her for her Oscar-worthy performance in EX MACHINA), TOMB RAIDER transforms Ms. Vikander into a viable action star. Her Lara Croft is not a "super-hero" who is impervious to pain, rather, she is a real person (a tough one, I'll admit) but when she gets hurt, she feels it.
Doing everything but twirling his mustache is Walton Goggins as Mathias Vogel a rival Tomb Raider looking to raid the same tomb.
Why are they looking for this tomb? Does it matter? Nope. The fun is in the journey - and what fun there is. Norwegian Director Roar Uthaug (THE WAVE) keeps the action moving swiftly, jumping from one clue to another and one stunt to another, rarely slowing down for the audience to think - and that's a good thing, because as I'm thinking about this film a day later, I'm beginning to punch some pretty big holes in the plot. But...that doesn't matter because watching Croft/Vikander get herself out of trouble is entertaining.
Also shining in this film is Daniel Wu as Lu Ren, who's father, Lu Ren, disappeared chasing the same tomb as Croft's father (Dominic West). Ren and Crofft team up to race Vogel to the tomb.
Along for the ride in smaller-ish roles - in what appears to be the first film of a series - are such stalwarts as Nick Frost (uncredited), Jaime Winstone, Derek Jacobi and Kristen ScottThomas. All of whom must have been promised larger roles in later films in this series.
A solid start to the series. I, for one, will look forward to the next tomb that Lara Croft raids.
Letter Grade B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Apr 19, 2021
Nice Try
I have to admit that I never watched the 2006 BORAT film, but when it’s sequel BORAT SUBSEQUENT MOVIEFILM was nominated for 2 Oscars(!) - including Best Supporting Actress - I knew I would have to check this one out.
I have heard the following words and phrases used to describe the BORAT films: daring, ingenious, hilarious, cringe-inducing, smart, dumb, original and important. I would add one other word to this list:
Boring.
Sitting on the screen for and hour and a half like a Saturday Night Live skit that is being stretched too long, BORAT SUBSEQUENT MOVIEFILM held my attention for about the first 15 minutes where I thought that it was kind of funny and clever. And then it went on…and on…and on…running the same “sabotage” joke into the ground, pulling unsuspecting innocents into the outrageous world of Borat (though, I have to admit that most of these “unsuspecting innocents” knew exactly what was going on and were playing along).
Sasha Baron-Cohen is a smart filmmaker, writer and performer and he has earned the right to do whatever he feels like he wants to do. I prefer him in such movie fare as SWEENEY TODD, LES MISERABLES and the recent TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO SEVEN. But, if he feels like he wants to do things like Borat, who am I to argue. He certainly puts his all into the character, the scenarios and the guerilla film-making that is required, so good for him.
Maria Bakalova is nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar as she plays Borat’s daughter who accompanies him on his journey across America. It is a “fine” performance and brings something that this film sorely needs - heart. But Oscar worthy? I don’t think so.
I must also give credit to the filmmakers for pivoting when the pandemic hit. They were in the middle of creating this (obviously) anti-Trump political farce of a film when Covid-19 forced them to pivot - and pivot they did, making this film as much about the virus than it is about politics.
Ultimately, this is a case where I can admire the attempt, the art, the craftmanship and skill and talent needed to pull this movie off. But as a film, it just didn’t go anywhere and I found myself looking at my watch wondering when this film would be over.
And…no…I don’t think I’ll go back a “catch-up” on the first BORAT film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I have heard the following words and phrases used to describe the BORAT films: daring, ingenious, hilarious, cringe-inducing, smart, dumb, original and important. I would add one other word to this list:
Boring.
Sitting on the screen for and hour and a half like a Saturday Night Live skit that is being stretched too long, BORAT SUBSEQUENT MOVIEFILM held my attention for about the first 15 minutes where I thought that it was kind of funny and clever. And then it went on…and on…and on…running the same “sabotage” joke into the ground, pulling unsuspecting innocents into the outrageous world of Borat (though, I have to admit that most of these “unsuspecting innocents” knew exactly what was going on and were playing along).
Sasha Baron-Cohen is a smart filmmaker, writer and performer and he has earned the right to do whatever he feels like he wants to do. I prefer him in such movie fare as SWEENEY TODD, LES MISERABLES and the recent TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO SEVEN. But, if he feels like he wants to do things like Borat, who am I to argue. He certainly puts his all into the character, the scenarios and the guerilla film-making that is required, so good for him.
Maria Bakalova is nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar as she plays Borat’s daughter who accompanies him on his journey across America. It is a “fine” performance and brings something that this film sorely needs - heart. But Oscar worthy? I don’t think so.
I must also give credit to the filmmakers for pivoting when the pandemic hit. They were in the middle of creating this (obviously) anti-Trump political farce of a film when Covid-19 forced them to pivot - and pivot they did, making this film as much about the virus than it is about politics.
Ultimately, this is a case where I can admire the attempt, the art, the craftmanship and skill and talent needed to pull this movie off. But as a film, it just didn’t go anywhere and I found myself looking at my watch wondering when this film would be over.
And…no…I don’t think I’ll go back a “catch-up” on the first BORAT film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rain Man (1988) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
Hoffman and Cruise pair well together
Some films grow over time, some diminish and others are unfairly maligned. I feel that such is the case with 1988's RAINMAN, the film that won 4 Oscars including Best Director, Actor and Picture. I, too, thought that this film might be "cringe-worthy" in the harsh light of 2020, so it was with some trepidation that we fired it up as my wife's choice for "Secret Cinema" in our house.
I need not have worried for this film, it's themes and performances hold up very, very well more than 30 years later.
Starring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise, RAINMAN tells the story of selfish, self-absorbed, high flying Charlie Babbitt who is shocked to discover that he did not inherit the estate of his estranged father - it went to his brother, Raymond (who Charlie knew nothing about). Finding out that Raymond is autistic, Charlie kidnaps Raymond, figuring he could con his way to his Father's fortune.
The first, most surprising, part of this film is the wonderful chemistry between Cruise and Hoffman. They play off each other very well and seem to have a natural rapport. Hoffman, of course, won the Oscar for Best Actor that year - and it is well deserved, even though some claim that his characterization of Raymond is a "gimmick". I think that is not giving the character - and the performance - it's due, for I found (on this rewatch) that Hoffman's portrayal of Raymond is layered, sensitive and sincere. He builds a character that you want to root for.
The surprise of this film is Cruise's performance as Charlie Babbitt. At the beginning he is playing the "yuppie" jerk quite well - focused only on himself - and his possessions and the money he can make, Charlie is not very likable and is, if I must confess, a bit one-dimensional to start. But something happens along the cross-country road trip that Charlie takes Raymond on - his character (and Cruise's performance) grows and shapes into a fully three-dimensional person that has good traits and bad traits. It is one of Cruise's finest performances - and it is a shame that it was not rewarded with an Oscar nomination.
Director Barry Levinson (Director of the under-rated gem DINER) does a nice job keeping the pace - and the mood - of the film moving forward. This could easily have devolved into an over-sentimental and "schmaltzy" feel good flick, Levinson finds the right balance to make this a "feel good" film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I need not have worried for this film, it's themes and performances hold up very, very well more than 30 years later.
Starring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise, RAINMAN tells the story of selfish, self-absorbed, high flying Charlie Babbitt who is shocked to discover that he did not inherit the estate of his estranged father - it went to his brother, Raymond (who Charlie knew nothing about). Finding out that Raymond is autistic, Charlie kidnaps Raymond, figuring he could con his way to his Father's fortune.
The first, most surprising, part of this film is the wonderful chemistry between Cruise and Hoffman. They play off each other very well and seem to have a natural rapport. Hoffman, of course, won the Oscar for Best Actor that year - and it is well deserved, even though some claim that his characterization of Raymond is a "gimmick". I think that is not giving the character - and the performance - it's due, for I found (on this rewatch) that Hoffman's portrayal of Raymond is layered, sensitive and sincere. He builds a character that you want to root for.
The surprise of this film is Cruise's performance as Charlie Babbitt. At the beginning he is playing the "yuppie" jerk quite well - focused only on himself - and his possessions and the money he can make, Charlie is not very likable and is, if I must confess, a bit one-dimensional to start. But something happens along the cross-country road trip that Charlie takes Raymond on - his character (and Cruise's performance) grows and shapes into a fully three-dimensional person that has good traits and bad traits. It is one of Cruise's finest performances - and it is a shame that it was not rewarded with an Oscar nomination.
Director Barry Levinson (Director of the under-rated gem DINER) does a nice job keeping the pace - and the mood - of the film moving forward. This could easily have devolved into an over-sentimental and "schmaltzy" feel good flick, Levinson finds the right balance to make this a "feel good" film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Sting (1973) in Movies
Mar 29, 2020
On my list of All Time Favorite Films
I'll come right out and say it - the 1973 Academy Award winning film for Best Picture, THE STING, is one of the greatest films of all time. It's well written, well acted, well directed with a memorable musical score and characters, situations, costumes and set design that become richer over time and through repeated viewings.
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Moonlight (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Waxing or Waning?
Seldom do I go to see a movie where I know so little about the plot as this one. I knew it was a “coming of age” drama about a young man growing up in a black neighbourhood in Miami. Period. That ignorance was bliss (so that’s the way this review will stay: I will avoid my usual high-level summary here). For there are twists in this story that you don’t see coming, and moments of such dramatic force that they are cinematically searing.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.