Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated tick, tick...Boom! (2021) in Movies
Jan 11, 2022
A Love Letter
If you ever worked on a live theater performance, whether as a performer, tech crew, make-up, costumes, box office, etc…the Netflix Original film tick, tick…BOOM is for you.
If you are a theater lover, the Netflix Original film tick, tick…BOOM is for you.
If you are not interested in live theater at all..then, perhaps, tick, tick…BOOM might be a little too “inside baseball” for you.
Based on the one man concert/show/performance by the late Jonathan Larson, the writer of the the Pulitzer Prize winning musical RENT, tick, tick…BOOM expands this performance piece and turns it into a biopic of the artist who passed as his hit musical was just about ready to debut.
As written by Steven Levenson and Directed by Lin-Manuel Miranda, tick, tick…BOOM is a love letter to Broadway, to artists struggling to make it in the Great White Way, to the community of disaffected peoples in 1990 and, mostly, to Jonathan Larson himself.
Andrew Garfield is transcendent in his portrayal of Larson. He embodies this character with love, ambition, focus, flaws and a surprisingly strong singing voice. It is an Oscar-nomination worthy performance.
He is joined, lovingly, by a strong supporting cast starting with Alexandra Shipp (as Larson’s girlfriend), Robin de Jesus (as his best friend) and Vanessa Hudgens (as a performer in the show, called Superbia, that he is trying to get up on the boards). These young performers are joined by a couple of wily veterans including Judith Light (as his Agent) and Bradley Whitford (as the late Stephen Sondheim). They bring energy, star power and…yes…love…to the screen.
And that is what this film ultimately is, a love letter to all of the artists (both on-stage and off) that try, despite immeasurable odds, to get a show on it’s feet. Director Miranda infuses this film with homages to theater - and theater people - and sprinkles in some very good songs that drives this point home.
None of the numbers hit home as hard as the “Diner” song - a song that features many, many Broadway performers, both new and old, that were either inspirations to Larson - or were inspired by him (including Miranda himself).
Come for the musical, stay for the outstanding performance of Garfield, and immerse yourself into the world of struggling artists in NYC in the 1990’s. You’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you are a theater lover, the Netflix Original film tick, tick…BOOM is for you.
If you are not interested in live theater at all..then, perhaps, tick, tick…BOOM might be a little too “inside baseball” for you.
Based on the one man concert/show/performance by the late Jonathan Larson, the writer of the the Pulitzer Prize winning musical RENT, tick, tick…BOOM expands this performance piece and turns it into a biopic of the artist who passed as his hit musical was just about ready to debut.
As written by Steven Levenson and Directed by Lin-Manuel Miranda, tick, tick…BOOM is a love letter to Broadway, to artists struggling to make it in the Great White Way, to the community of disaffected peoples in 1990 and, mostly, to Jonathan Larson himself.
Andrew Garfield is transcendent in his portrayal of Larson. He embodies this character with love, ambition, focus, flaws and a surprisingly strong singing voice. It is an Oscar-nomination worthy performance.
He is joined, lovingly, by a strong supporting cast starting with Alexandra Shipp (as Larson’s girlfriend), Robin de Jesus (as his best friend) and Vanessa Hudgens (as a performer in the show, called Superbia, that he is trying to get up on the boards). These young performers are joined by a couple of wily veterans including Judith Light (as his Agent) and Bradley Whitford (as the late Stephen Sondheim). They bring energy, star power and…yes…love…to the screen.
And that is what this film ultimately is, a love letter to all of the artists (both on-stage and off) that try, despite immeasurable odds, to get a show on it’s feet. Director Miranda infuses this film with homages to theater - and theater people - and sprinkles in some very good songs that drives this point home.
None of the numbers hit home as hard as the “Diner” song - a song that features many, many Broadway performers, both new and old, that were either inspirations to Larson - or were inspired by him (including Miranda himself).
Come for the musical, stay for the outstanding performance of Garfield, and immerse yourself into the world of struggling artists in NYC in the 1990’s. You’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
He captured a feeling. Sky with no ceiling.
A memorable event
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dirty Grandpa (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Dirty De Niro
It’s hard to imagine an acting career that has continuously impressed as much as that of Robert De Niro. The two-time Academy Award-winner has also racked up an incredible five further nominations at the Oscars, cementing him as a Hollywood great.
However, over the last few years, this acting veteran has spiralled into rather dangerous territory. Taking on thankless role after thankless role with terrible romantic comedies, his filmography makes for grim reading these days.
His latest movie sees him star alongside the hunky Zac Efron in Dirty Grandpa, a gross-out comedy following the pair on a road trip from Atlanta to Florida, but does it do enough to restore some sheen to De Niro’s CV?
De Niro stars as Richard ‘Dick’ Kelly, an army veteran mourning the loss of his late wife. To ease his grief, he and his uptight lawyer grandson Jason (Efron) take a trip together as a way of catching up. Though for Dick, there’s more than scenery on his mind.
I’ll get this off my chest before we go any further. The script is absolutely atrocious and one of the worst I have ever come across in the genre, and Dan Mazer’s inconsistent direction only highlights these major flaws.
Both Efron and De Niro look uncomfortable with the overly offensive dialogue that targets homosexuals and ethnic minorities just to try and raise a laugh. This is comedy at its laziest and Dirty Grandpa is more than happy to admit that to you – it’s definitely not ashamed of what it is.
Nevertheless, it’s such a shame to see a former Oscar winner taking on the role of a borderline perverted grandparent. The constant leering at college girls and the cringe-worthy talk of sex just don’t sit well with those who know of De Niro’s once unrivalled talent and this is why he feels sorely miscast.
Efron too starts off incredibly poorly. As the uptight lawyer, he spouts legalese that you know he doesn’t truly understand, though once he starts to unwind we see him at his best. The actor knows that he works well in films where he can use his cracking smile and body to full effect and it’s certainly out in force here.
Elsewhere, a supporting cast that includes Parks and Recreation’s Aubrey Plaza fares much better with Plaza being the film’s standout character. Her sex-obsessed Lenore is actually very funny indeed and provides Dirty Grandpa with what it sorely needs – genuine comedy.
Unfortunately, despite a few laughs, the film tries too hard with the tired old clichés. From fart jokes to racism and sexism, it’s all there – all the while unaware it’s adding another nail in the coffin of Robert De Niro’s acting career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/05/dire-de-niro-dirty-grandpa-review/
However, over the last few years, this acting veteran has spiralled into rather dangerous territory. Taking on thankless role after thankless role with terrible romantic comedies, his filmography makes for grim reading these days.
His latest movie sees him star alongside the hunky Zac Efron in Dirty Grandpa, a gross-out comedy following the pair on a road trip from Atlanta to Florida, but does it do enough to restore some sheen to De Niro’s CV?
De Niro stars as Richard ‘Dick’ Kelly, an army veteran mourning the loss of his late wife. To ease his grief, he and his uptight lawyer grandson Jason (Efron) take a trip together as a way of catching up. Though for Dick, there’s more than scenery on his mind.
I’ll get this off my chest before we go any further. The script is absolutely atrocious and one of the worst I have ever come across in the genre, and Dan Mazer’s inconsistent direction only highlights these major flaws.
Both Efron and De Niro look uncomfortable with the overly offensive dialogue that targets homosexuals and ethnic minorities just to try and raise a laugh. This is comedy at its laziest and Dirty Grandpa is more than happy to admit that to you – it’s definitely not ashamed of what it is.
Nevertheless, it’s such a shame to see a former Oscar winner taking on the role of a borderline perverted grandparent. The constant leering at college girls and the cringe-worthy talk of sex just don’t sit well with those who know of De Niro’s once unrivalled talent and this is why he feels sorely miscast.
Efron too starts off incredibly poorly. As the uptight lawyer, he spouts legalese that you know he doesn’t truly understand, though once he starts to unwind we see him at his best. The actor knows that he works well in films where he can use his cracking smile and body to full effect and it’s certainly out in force here.
Elsewhere, a supporting cast that includes Parks and Recreation’s Aubrey Plaza fares much better with Plaza being the film’s standout character. Her sex-obsessed Lenore is actually very funny indeed and provides Dirty Grandpa with what it sorely needs – genuine comedy.
Unfortunately, despite a few laughs, the film tries too hard with the tired old clichés. From fart jokes to racism and sexism, it’s all there – all the while unaware it’s adding another nail in the coffin of Robert De Niro’s acting career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/05/dire-de-niro-dirty-grandpa-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Elton John has had a career that has spanned decades, millions of albums sold, packed venues, awards, and more than a few headlines. In the new film “Rocketman” audiences get a look behind the man thanks to the amazing and Oscar worthy portrayal by Taron Egerton.
The film opens with a flamboyantly dressed John entering rehab in one of his stage costumes. As he opens up with his group, he shares the story of his childhood as a shy child who is desperate to have his father show him any signs of approval or affection.
When it is discovered that he has talent with the piano; his grandmother encourages him and even takes him to apply for a position at the Royal Academy of Music.
His mother (Bryce Dallas Howard) is moderately supportive but is more focused on her social life brought on by her failing marriage.
As the film unfolds; we see Elton working in a backup band and in time answering an ad that puts him with an agent. Paired with the man who would eventually change his life; Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell), Elton and Bernie combine to write a series of songs which in turn leads him to a series of gigs in Los Angeles. The film shifts into high gear at this point as we see how their music becomes a smash and leads to a series of parties, drugs, and money.
Elton meets Manager John Reid (Richard Madden), who becomes his
As the record sales and hits mount, so does the destructive behaviors which leads Elton down a destructive path that threatens everything he has worked for.
The movie is a masterpiece of music and story and it cleverly uses musical montages and segments around the performances to outline various segments of his life and his rise to stardom.
The performances are amazing and Egerton was simply amazing as he not only captured the complexity of his character but performed all the vocals of the hit songs himself and they were spot on.
During our Press Screening I noticed many people singing along, tapping their feet, or bobbing their heads along with the music which helps to underscore just how timeless and popular his catalog of music has been as the songs have endured the test of time.
The film also evokes some unexpected emotion as there were more than a few people wiping their eyes during the film which at its core is a store of a young, shy boy desperate to be accepted and loved.
I truly hope the film is recognized come Awards season as it is a wonderful and memorable cinematic experience.
http://sknr.net/2019/05/31/rocketman/
The film opens with a flamboyantly dressed John entering rehab in one of his stage costumes. As he opens up with his group, he shares the story of his childhood as a shy child who is desperate to have his father show him any signs of approval or affection.
When it is discovered that he has talent with the piano; his grandmother encourages him and even takes him to apply for a position at the Royal Academy of Music.
His mother (Bryce Dallas Howard) is moderately supportive but is more focused on her social life brought on by her failing marriage.
As the film unfolds; we see Elton working in a backup band and in time answering an ad that puts him with an agent. Paired with the man who would eventually change his life; Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell), Elton and Bernie combine to write a series of songs which in turn leads him to a series of gigs in Los Angeles. The film shifts into high gear at this point as we see how their music becomes a smash and leads to a series of parties, drugs, and money.
Elton meets Manager John Reid (Richard Madden), who becomes his
As the record sales and hits mount, so does the destructive behaviors which leads Elton down a destructive path that threatens everything he has worked for.
The movie is a masterpiece of music and story and it cleverly uses musical montages and segments around the performances to outline various segments of his life and his rise to stardom.
The performances are amazing and Egerton was simply amazing as he not only captured the complexity of his character but performed all the vocals of the hit songs himself and they were spot on.
During our Press Screening I noticed many people singing along, tapping their feet, or bobbing their heads along with the music which helps to underscore just how timeless and popular his catalog of music has been as the songs have endured the test of time.
The film also evokes some unexpected emotion as there were more than a few people wiping their eyes during the film which at its core is a store of a young, shy boy desperate to be accepted and loved.
I truly hope the film is recognized come Awards season as it is a wonderful and memorable cinematic experience.
http://sknr.net/2019/05/31/rocketman/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dreamgirls (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The rise of Motown records is one of the music industries greatest tales. Berry Gordy Jr. in 1959 established the record label that not only made stars of numerous talents such as Diana Ross and the Supremes and the Jackson 5, but helped African American talents finds success in other markets and mainstream radio.
In the film Dreamgirls, Director/Screenwriter Bill Condon brings the book and musical of the same name to the big screen with style and energy, and tells an inspired and entertaining story.
Though the names have been changed, it does not take much effort to discover that many parts in the film are indeed based upon actual people, and situations, which only ads to the story and characters, as though seeing a work of fiction, there is some factual basis to what is being shown.
Beyonce’ Knowles stars as Deena Jones, who is the lead singer in a female trio who hope to get noticed at a local talent show. While the group fails to win, they do attract the attention of Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jaime Foxx), a local manager who runs a car dealership during the day.
Curtis takes the girls under his management and soon begins a relationship with Effie, (Jennifer Hudson), as the band begins to get notice. Curtis uses bribes to get the girls played on white radio stations and soon has a hit on his hands and forms his own record label in order for his talent.
While on tour with R&B legend James Thunder Early (Eddie Murphy), the decision is made to make Deena sing lead over Effie which leads to tensions in the band despite their growing success.
What follows is a tale full of love, loss, success, failure, redemption, and laughs as the dynamic tale of the girls and their career is told over the passage of several years.
While much has been made of the singing of Beyonce’ and Jennifer Hudson, Eddie Murphy was clearly the star of the film as he brought a dynamic energy to the film whenever he was on screen. Murphy amazingly blended comedy and music as he performed his own material as well as generated sympathy as the troubled singer, who is trying to hold onto fleeting fame amongst changing times and gives and Oscar worthy performance.
The songs of the film are very well done, though at times, some of them dragged on to long for my taste, and at times hampered the narrative portion of the film.
That being said, Dreamgirls is one of the best musical to hit the screen and if for no reason other than Murphy’s performance is must see film.
In the film Dreamgirls, Director/Screenwriter Bill Condon brings the book and musical of the same name to the big screen with style and energy, and tells an inspired and entertaining story.
Though the names have been changed, it does not take much effort to discover that many parts in the film are indeed based upon actual people, and situations, which only ads to the story and characters, as though seeing a work of fiction, there is some factual basis to what is being shown.
Beyonce’ Knowles stars as Deena Jones, who is the lead singer in a female trio who hope to get noticed at a local talent show. While the group fails to win, they do attract the attention of Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jaime Foxx), a local manager who runs a car dealership during the day.
Curtis takes the girls under his management and soon begins a relationship with Effie, (Jennifer Hudson), as the band begins to get notice. Curtis uses bribes to get the girls played on white radio stations and soon has a hit on his hands and forms his own record label in order for his talent.
While on tour with R&B legend James Thunder Early (Eddie Murphy), the decision is made to make Deena sing lead over Effie which leads to tensions in the band despite their growing success.
What follows is a tale full of love, loss, success, failure, redemption, and laughs as the dynamic tale of the girls and their career is told over the passage of several years.
While much has been made of the singing of Beyonce’ and Jennifer Hudson, Eddie Murphy was clearly the star of the film as he brought a dynamic energy to the film whenever he was on screen. Murphy amazingly blended comedy and music as he performed his own material as well as generated sympathy as the troubled singer, who is trying to hold onto fleeting fame amongst changing times and gives and Oscar worthy performance.
The songs of the film are very well done, though at times, some of them dragged on to long for my taste, and at times hampered the narrative portion of the film.
That being said, Dreamgirls is one of the best musical to hit the screen and if for no reason other than Murphy’s performance is must see film.
Felipe (17 KP) rated Chaplin (1992) in Movies
Dec 7, 2020
A modern tragedy meant to be one of the greats
Contains spoilers, click to show
Richard Attenborough delivers another masterpiece of cinematic biography and is a worthy successor to Ghandi. The structure of the film is told as a flashback while Charlie Chaplin is writing his autobiography with a fictional editor that does not exist. We see for the first time the flaws of who Chaplin is as a person and we see him confront his past in a way that is painful not unlike how it is painful when we relive moments in our lives we would rather choose to forget. However, the success of the film is how it strips the illusion of who Chaplin was and presents to us a person who is tragically flawed but who is unbale to appreciate his own genius. An example is when Chaplin's version of the invention of the Tramp is seen for what he imagined it to be an idealized moment in which the character is calling to him except for what it really was, We see the reality of the movies during this time; a hectic spur of the moment improvised invention drawn from real life. Yet we see Chaplin as the midwife to this new artform the movies and we see him develop it for what it is, the highest expression of art that stirs our imagination and makes us believe anything is possible. We even cry during Chaplin's moments of personal tragedy; the insanity and loss of his mother; repeated failed marriages; the death of his best friend, Douglas Fairbanks and finally his tragic and painful exile from America the only place he knew as home all taking place in the backdrop of the invention and evolution of cinema. However, I feel that in the end Chaplin is the one that comes out triumphant. In the last moments of the movie we see how Chaplin despairs that he feels that he has been forgotten and made irrelevant by the changing times; he feels that the weight of not only his age but the weight of the world on his shoulders and yet we see that everything he believes himself to be is completely wrong when Hollywood bestows on him the greatest honor which is not only the special Oscar but also a standing ovation. His final triumph is to be made a knight by Queen Elizabeth II, we are truly made to see that although flawed he is triumphant in the end.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Night House (2020) in Movies
Aug 23, 2021
Rebecca Hall - outstanding (1 more)
Nicely vague script: leaves a lot to interpret
This one really creeped me out
Positives:
- Of the different movie genres, comedy and horror are probably the ones that polarise opinion the most. One person's meat is another's fowl. But I have to say that this movie officially creeped me out. I was extremely tense for just about the whole 107 minute running time. Much of this is down to Rebecca Hall, who is just SUPERB in this. She brilliantly portrays a woman on the edge, her impassive character breaking every so often into an "everything's fine" sarcastic smile. I know that the Academy tend not to nominate actors for Oscars for 'frivolous' films, but this genuinely, to me, felt like an Oscar-nomination-worthy performance.
- I've talked before in my blog about the overuse of 'jump scares' in horror films and the law of diminishing returns. This film doles them out very sparingly indeed. There are two notable ones (one spoiled by the trailer!) but - man - the first of these had me levitating off the seat!
- The script is very vague indeed about where you end up in this movie. (I've tried to do a synopsis of what I *think* happened in a "Sp0iler section" in my blog). The script deliciously muddies the waters between dreams and reality; sanity and madness; sobriety and drunkenness; with the real-life Madelyn (Stacy Martin) bringing you up short at times with an "oh - so that bit must by reality then"!
Negatives:
- The ending. I'm not sure how I wanted it to end. But it felt wholly anti-climactic.
Summary Thoughts on "The Night House": London-born Rebecca Hall seems to have a "leisurely" output as an actress, but she really deserves more prominence in the industry. (If you've not seen it yet, watch her outstanding performance in "Christine" as another proof point). Here she magnificently holds the movie together.
Effective horror films for me are those on the tense psychological side rather than the mindless slasher variety. This point was well made by Tom Shone in his review in "The Sunday Times", describing it as a "middle-aged kind of horror movie!". "The Night House" delivered those mental chills for me in spades. There is actually very little gore in this one. But it certainly had me thinking about it when I woke up in the middle of the night last night. Was that a noise downstairs??
If you like your scary films, then this one is highly recommended.
(For my full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
- Of the different movie genres, comedy and horror are probably the ones that polarise opinion the most. One person's meat is another's fowl. But I have to say that this movie officially creeped me out. I was extremely tense for just about the whole 107 minute running time. Much of this is down to Rebecca Hall, who is just SUPERB in this. She brilliantly portrays a woman on the edge, her impassive character breaking every so often into an "everything's fine" sarcastic smile. I know that the Academy tend not to nominate actors for Oscars for 'frivolous' films, but this genuinely, to me, felt like an Oscar-nomination-worthy performance.
- I've talked before in my blog about the overuse of 'jump scares' in horror films and the law of diminishing returns. This film doles them out very sparingly indeed. There are two notable ones (one spoiled by the trailer!) but - man - the first of these had me levitating off the seat!
- The script is very vague indeed about where you end up in this movie. (I've tried to do a synopsis of what I *think* happened in a "Sp0iler section" in my blog). The script deliciously muddies the waters between dreams and reality; sanity and madness; sobriety and drunkenness; with the real-life Madelyn (Stacy Martin) bringing you up short at times with an "oh - so that bit must by reality then"!
Negatives:
- The ending. I'm not sure how I wanted it to end. But it felt wholly anti-climactic.
Summary Thoughts on "The Night House": London-born Rebecca Hall seems to have a "leisurely" output as an actress, but she really deserves more prominence in the industry. (If you've not seen it yet, watch her outstanding performance in "Christine" as another proof point). Here she magnificently holds the movie together.
Effective horror films for me are those on the tense psychological side rather than the mindless slasher variety. This point was well made by Tom Shone in his review in "The Sunday Times", describing it as a "middle-aged kind of horror movie!". "The Night House" delivered those mental chills for me in spades. There is actually very little gore in this one. But it certainly had me thinking about it when I woke up in the middle of the night last night. Was that a noise downstairs??
If you like your scary films, then this one is highly recommended.
(For my full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Wife (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021 (Updated Sep 28, 2021)
Glenn Close … #robbed.
I missed “The Wife” when it came out in September, but finally caught it a few weeks ago. (Been a busy time at work so have a bit of a backlog of reviews!).
The Plot.
Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) is the doting wife of internationally renowned writer Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce). As we start the film, Joe has just received a call from Stockholm. No, it’s not an “amusing story about a goat” (for any MM2 fans out there). It’s notification that he is to receive the Nobel prize for literature. As Joan listens to the news on the extension, there is something in her eyes that betrays mixed emotions.
They travel to Sweden (on Concorde, obviously) with their son Max (Max Irons) – a writer at the start of his career. Max and Joe have a strained relationship.
Also in Stockholm is Nathanial Bone (Christian Slater) – the bane of Joe’s life, since he seems insistent on writing the biography of the great man. As Nathanial picks through the history of the couple, things start to unravel in unexpected ways.
What a performance!
The heart of this film, and the main reason for watching what is really a bit of a pot-boiler, is the performance by Glenn Close. It’s a remarkable demonstration of the acting craft and 110% Oscar worthy.
Don’t get me wrong…. as I watched the Oscars live in the wee-hours of Monday morning I let out a WHOOP of joy when our own national treasure Olivia Colman picked up the award. But I have to say that I think Glenn Close was rather robbed. Close can act brilliantly without saying a single word. In fact most of her best scenes are reaction shots to what she is listening to.
In comparison I found Jonathan Pryce to be a soupçon over-the-top as the feted writer, and I didn’t find the portrayal of Bone by Slater to be terribly convincing. So it’s a very mixed acting bag in my view.
Utterly gorgeous in a way that only Swedish women can be is Karin Franz Körlof as the personal photographer Linnea. She can also act!
A perfectly pleasant movie
Directed by Swedish director Björn Runge and with a screenplay by Jane Anderson, it’s a perfectly pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. The story is intriguing enough to keep your interest, although it plays its hand so early that the simmering suspense element ebbs out of the film. A final “Sixth Sense” style of reveal might have been much more effective.
But this is above all a film to relish the performance of Close: the facial acting during the speech at the awards ceremony is something that should be studied at acting schools for years to come.
The Plot.
Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) is the doting wife of internationally renowned writer Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce). As we start the film, Joe has just received a call from Stockholm. No, it’s not an “amusing story about a goat” (for any MM2 fans out there). It’s notification that he is to receive the Nobel prize for literature. As Joan listens to the news on the extension, there is something in her eyes that betrays mixed emotions.
They travel to Sweden (on Concorde, obviously) with their son Max (Max Irons) – a writer at the start of his career. Max and Joe have a strained relationship.
Also in Stockholm is Nathanial Bone (Christian Slater) – the bane of Joe’s life, since he seems insistent on writing the biography of the great man. As Nathanial picks through the history of the couple, things start to unravel in unexpected ways.
What a performance!
The heart of this film, and the main reason for watching what is really a bit of a pot-boiler, is the performance by Glenn Close. It’s a remarkable demonstration of the acting craft and 110% Oscar worthy.
Don’t get me wrong…. as I watched the Oscars live in the wee-hours of Monday morning I let out a WHOOP of joy when our own national treasure Olivia Colman picked up the award. But I have to say that I think Glenn Close was rather robbed. Close can act brilliantly without saying a single word. In fact most of her best scenes are reaction shots to what she is listening to.
In comparison I found Jonathan Pryce to be a soupçon over-the-top as the feted writer, and I didn’t find the portrayal of Bone by Slater to be terribly convincing. So it’s a very mixed acting bag in my view.
Utterly gorgeous in a way that only Swedish women can be is Karin Franz Körlof as the personal photographer Linnea. She can also act!
A perfectly pleasant movie
Directed by Swedish director Björn Runge and with a screenplay by Jane Anderson, it’s a perfectly pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. The story is intriguing enough to keep your interest, although it plays its hand so early that the simmering suspense element ebbs out of the film. A final “Sixth Sense” style of reveal might have been much more effective.
But this is above all a film to relish the performance of Close: the facial acting during the speech at the awards ceremony is something that should be studied at acting schools for years to come.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Power-house female lead roles, times 3. (1 more)
John Lithgow (who should have got a supporting actor nom)
Sleazy old Fox.
This is a curious one. I wonder whether the audience reaction to this one will polarize along gender lines as it did for my wife and I? For I thought this one was "good, but nothing special"... but the illustrious Mrs Movie Man thought it was excellent and would be "memorable".
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Bland and boring DESPITE J-Lo's performance
When I first saw the trailer for the Jennifer Lopez "strippers get back at scummy Wall Street-types" film, HUSTLERS, I wasn't at all interested in seeing it But then I got wind of strong early reviews with some (very faint) Oscar talk about J-Lo's performance in this film, so I thought I'd check it out.
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)