Search
Search results
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019 (Updated Feb 25, 2019)
Groundbreaker mired in slop
Contains spoilers, click to show
Regarded as one of the best war films ever made, it certainly qualifies. The opening twenty minutes are still as breathtaking, shocking and disturbing realistic as they were back in 1998. It is hard to imagine that it has now been over twelve years since Saving Private Ryan broke the mold of World War II film making.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Favourite (2018) in Movies
Jan 24, 2019
Quirky and original with strong performances and direction
Greek Director Yorgos Lanthimos is the director of such quirky, bizarre comedy/dramas as DOGTOOTH, THE LOBSTER and KILLING OF A SACRED DEER and his latest, THE FAVOURITE is no different, so when it was nominated for 10 Oscars, I thought I'd better go see what all the fuss was all about.
And I'm glad I did for THE FAVOURITE is a biting, funny, sarcastic, bizarre, intense and interesting Royal Court drama about the inner workings, back channel dealings and backstabbing social climbing in Queen Anne's court in England in the early 18th Century as seen through Lanthimos' camera lens - a lens that is different indeed.
Starring Oscar winners Rachel Weisz (THE CONSTANT GARDNER) and Emma Stone (LA LA LAND) in their Oscar nominated turns as cousins who vie for the attentions of Queen Anne (Olivia Colman, also Oscar nominated), it is the rare film that features 3 strong women who play off each other well and where each one is a full character in and of themselves - all 3 with strengths and weaknesses that make them real and compelling and performed by 3 strong actresses. Needless to say that each Oscar nod is well deserved.
But the real star of this film is the sensibilities and camera work of Lanthimos. He uses unusual camera angles, unusual angles and bizarre imagery to show the unreality of the court in relation to the real world around them and is a commentary on these people as much as it shows the action on the screen. This film is an artist with a true, unique vision and is one that, while not for everyone, is one that worked for me.
Lanthimos layers on a rich tapestry of story (by Oscar nominated Screenplay writers Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara) locations (by Oscar nominated Production Designers Fijona Crombie and Alice Felton), Costumes (by Oscar nominated costumer Sandy Powell) , editing (by Oscar nominated Yorgos Mavropsaridis), Cinematography (by Oscar nominated Robbie Ryan) and performances, direction and film.
I think you get the point - this film has become (rightfully so) a darling of the Awards season and is well worth checking out - while this film is not entirely successful in what it attempts to do, it is fun to watch the attempt and the strong performances, characters, direction, costumes, cinematography, etc...which more than makes up for any shortcomings in the story (especially the final act of the film).
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And I'm glad I did for THE FAVOURITE is a biting, funny, sarcastic, bizarre, intense and interesting Royal Court drama about the inner workings, back channel dealings and backstabbing social climbing in Queen Anne's court in England in the early 18th Century as seen through Lanthimos' camera lens - a lens that is different indeed.
Starring Oscar winners Rachel Weisz (THE CONSTANT GARDNER) and Emma Stone (LA LA LAND) in their Oscar nominated turns as cousins who vie for the attentions of Queen Anne (Olivia Colman, also Oscar nominated), it is the rare film that features 3 strong women who play off each other well and where each one is a full character in and of themselves - all 3 with strengths and weaknesses that make them real and compelling and performed by 3 strong actresses. Needless to say that each Oscar nod is well deserved.
But the real star of this film is the sensibilities and camera work of Lanthimos. He uses unusual camera angles, unusual angles and bizarre imagery to show the unreality of the court in relation to the real world around them and is a commentary on these people as much as it shows the action on the screen. This film is an artist with a true, unique vision and is one that, while not for everyone, is one that worked for me.
Lanthimos layers on a rich tapestry of story (by Oscar nominated Screenplay writers Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara) locations (by Oscar nominated Production Designers Fijona Crombie and Alice Felton), Costumes (by Oscar nominated costumer Sandy Powell) , editing (by Oscar nominated Yorgos Mavropsaridis), Cinematography (by Oscar nominated Robbie Ryan) and performances, direction and film.
I think you get the point - this film has become (rightfully so) a darling of the Awards season and is well worth checking out - while this film is not entirely successful in what it attempts to do, it is fun to watch the attempt and the strong performances, characters, direction, costumes, cinematography, etc...which more than makes up for any shortcomings in the story (especially the final act of the film).
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Simon Pegg recommended Annie Hall (1977) in Movies (curated)
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)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Another Round (2020) in Movies
Jun 30, 2021
Mads Mikkelsen. The rest of the ensemble cast are great too. (1 more)
Momentum of the movie is great.
A cure for a mid-life crisis? It’s worth a shot!
After giving the most emotional and heartbreaking Oscar speech of the recent awards, Thomas Vinterberg's International Feature winner is now in UK cinemas. "Druk" (Danish for "Binge Drinking") is in the Danish language with subtitles: but don't let that put you off.
Positives:
- Mads Mikkelsen delivers a stunning performance. He really delivers the goods. He was nominated for a BAFTA for the role but missed out on the Oscar nomination. This feels unjust. I would have personally swapped out Steven Yeun for this performance by Mads.
- Thomas Vinterberg was justly nominated for Best Director at both the BAFTAs and the Oscars. The movie never lacks momentum from beginning to end. I was thoroughly entertained.
- It's quite unusual to see a 'buddy movie' concerning a group of men that's not a cop film. My wife described it as a '"chick-flick for blokes". I guess you need to go to "The Hangover" films to find an equivalent. (That of course also centres around alcohol. Are we really that shallow?!)
Negatives:
- Up until a "church scene", I thought the story was well-structured and coherent. But I'm not quite sure what message the finale of the movie was trying to send. Yes, it's fun and full of energy. And Mikkelsen's dancing is both bizarre and entertaining. But given all that's gone before, is it a "what the hell, life is for living and alcohol is part of that" statement? I was unsure.
Summary Thoughts on "Another Round": The movie is dedicated to "Ada" - Vinterberg's daughter, who was supposed to be acting in the film but tragically died in a car crash just four days into shooting. (Hence his emotional Oscar acceptance). The fact he managed to finish the movie at all is amazing. But the fact it's so good is a great memorial to her.
It's billed as a "comedy drama" but, although there are comic moments, it leans heavily on the "drama". The Scandinavians in general tend to drink as much, if not more, than the British do. So this is a reminder of both the benefits and risks of the evil drink.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies her - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/30/another-round-cure-for-a-mid-life-crisis-its-worth-a-shot/ , You can also check out my new Tiktok channel @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Mads Mikkelsen delivers a stunning performance. He really delivers the goods. He was nominated for a BAFTA for the role but missed out on the Oscar nomination. This feels unjust. I would have personally swapped out Steven Yeun for this performance by Mads.
- Thomas Vinterberg was justly nominated for Best Director at both the BAFTAs and the Oscars. The movie never lacks momentum from beginning to end. I was thoroughly entertained.
- It's quite unusual to see a 'buddy movie' concerning a group of men that's not a cop film. My wife described it as a '"chick-flick for blokes". I guess you need to go to "The Hangover" films to find an equivalent. (That of course also centres around alcohol. Are we really that shallow?!)
Negatives:
- Up until a "church scene", I thought the story was well-structured and coherent. But I'm not quite sure what message the finale of the movie was trying to send. Yes, it's fun and full of energy. And Mikkelsen's dancing is both bizarre and entertaining. But given all that's gone before, is it a "what the hell, life is for living and alcohol is part of that" statement? I was unsure.
Summary Thoughts on "Another Round": The movie is dedicated to "Ada" - Vinterberg's daughter, who was supposed to be acting in the film but tragically died in a car crash just four days into shooting. (Hence his emotional Oscar acceptance). The fact he managed to finish the movie at all is amazing. But the fact it's so good is a great memorial to her.
It's billed as a "comedy drama" but, although there are comic moments, it leans heavily on the "drama". The Scandinavians in general tend to drink as much, if not more, than the British do. So this is a reminder of both the benefits and risks of the evil drink.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies her - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/30/another-round-cure-for-a-mid-life-crisis-its-worth-a-shot/ , You can also check out my new Tiktok channel @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
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)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated House of Gucci (2021) in Movies
Dec 7, 2021
If there was ever the perfect example of an incredible cast stuck inside a lackluster finished product, then House of Gucci is surely it.
The pacing is the main culprit. The first 45 minutes or so feel relatively breezy. The narrative unfolding is a fun and interesting one. The characters are all introduced well enough. But something happens around the midpoint that makes HoG feel like a slog, and it never quite recovers. For a story that has a very specific final destination, it manages to feel direction-less for quite a bit of the runtime. By the time the credits rolled, I felt like I'd run a marathon through thick mud.
The saving grace then, is the aforementioned cast. Lady Gaga turns in a magnificent performance, further cementing that she belongs in cinema. I've said before, and I'll say it again, I fucking love Adam Driver in pretty much everything he touches, and here is no different. The two leads together go a long way to ensure that HoG remains watchable. Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons could play these kind of roles in their sleep by now but their presence here is a welcome one. There's a specific scene somewhere within the first hour (I think) where it's just the two of them talking to eachother about their respective offspring, and it's like screen crack for me. Two masters at work. Then there's Jared Leto, who's portrayal of Paolo Gucci could definitely be deemed as excessive, full on Mario-esque accent and all, but he actually provides a huge dash of charisma in the duller moments so I can't complain too much.
All of the characters in this story are bad people to varying levels of degree, but they also command a certain level of sympathy, and to HoG's credit, this aspect is executed well, and 100% sold by it's great talent.
House of Gucci is nice to look at, boasts a top drawer ensemble cast, and has some genuine moments of excellence, but it's also overblown and overstuffed with hot air. I saw another review on here saying that it felt like it was made with the sole and transparent purpose of winning Oscars, and I can completely agree with that statement. Ridley Scott has made some of my absolute favourite films over the years, and while it does have its merits and is fun in parts, this one sadly feels a little self indulgent to really hit the mark.
The pacing is the main culprit. The first 45 minutes or so feel relatively breezy. The narrative unfolding is a fun and interesting one. The characters are all introduced well enough. But something happens around the midpoint that makes HoG feel like a slog, and it never quite recovers. For a story that has a very specific final destination, it manages to feel direction-less for quite a bit of the runtime. By the time the credits rolled, I felt like I'd run a marathon through thick mud.
The saving grace then, is the aforementioned cast. Lady Gaga turns in a magnificent performance, further cementing that she belongs in cinema. I've said before, and I'll say it again, I fucking love Adam Driver in pretty much everything he touches, and here is no different. The two leads together go a long way to ensure that HoG remains watchable. Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons could play these kind of roles in their sleep by now but their presence here is a welcome one. There's a specific scene somewhere within the first hour (I think) where it's just the two of them talking to eachother about their respective offspring, and it's like screen crack for me. Two masters at work. Then there's Jared Leto, who's portrayal of Paolo Gucci could definitely be deemed as excessive, full on Mario-esque accent and all, but he actually provides a huge dash of charisma in the duller moments so I can't complain too much.
All of the characters in this story are bad people to varying levels of degree, but they also command a certain level of sympathy, and to HoG's credit, this aspect is executed well, and 100% sold by it's great talent.
House of Gucci is nice to look at, boasts a top drawer ensemble cast, and has some genuine moments of excellence, but it's also overblown and overstuffed with hot air. I saw another review on here saying that it felt like it was made with the sole and transparent purpose of winning Oscars, and I can completely agree with that statement. Ridley Scott has made some of my absolute favourite films over the years, and while it does have its merits and is fun in parts, this one sadly feels a little self indulgent to really hit the mark.
TheFiend13420 (21 KP) rated Where The Scary Things Are (2022) in Movies
Jun 28, 2022 (Updated Jun 28, 2022)
Excellent performances by virtually unknown cast (2 more)
Well written, fun and flows well
Beauty make-up job on the creature
The Loser's Club these kids are NOT
I have been waiting for this film to come out for months now. And it was totally worth the wait.
A group of friends, led by angry disruptive Ayla, venture out to the closed down Field of Screams Halloween Haunt in search of a local urban legend. Prompted by one of their teachers, They are asked to make up their own Legend and try to bring it to life to prove how false facts can create a sort of mass hysteria. And eventually. They become real... Like local urban legend, Lockjaw.
First off... These fucking kids
None of them are likable. They all have something that makes them horrible. There's no smiles and laughs while walking down the fucking train tracks in this not so feel good movie. The performances by these kids. Even the youngest one... Who you kind of want to kick in the face... puts in a stellar showing. The lead girl. With her serial killer like lack of emotion and empathy. If there were Oscars for horror. She would most definitely be nominated. Even the one kid who shows some form of common sense. Has not one real redeeming quality. These kids are just plain horrid. You literally wish death upon these teenagers
Second. The originality of the whole thing. I know it will probably garner some comparisons to Psycho Goreman. But... Believe me when i tell you... There is no similarity. These are two completely seperate entities.
The idea of Urban Legends coming true. And not being projected by some killer in a parka. makes me extremely happy. Not a slight against the series of Urban Legend movies... I love them... But...
Third. I love the pace of the film. It keeps going, doesn't let up in the slightest. Just when you think you've seen it all. The little bastards just break down the morality wall a little bit more. Such a fun ride to be on.
Was it worth the wait. Absolutely.
Would I recommend it to my friends.... 100%.
Will it be something I'd watch again... I'm actually watching it again... Right now... While I do this review.
Mr. Smith, you've done it again.
You have kept my interest and left me utterly satisfied with an hour and a half of pure horrific pleasure.
Not one stitch of disappointment here...
A group of friends, led by angry disruptive Ayla, venture out to the closed down Field of Screams Halloween Haunt in search of a local urban legend. Prompted by one of their teachers, They are asked to make up their own Legend and try to bring it to life to prove how false facts can create a sort of mass hysteria. And eventually. They become real... Like local urban legend, Lockjaw.
First off... These fucking kids
None of them are likable. They all have something that makes them horrible. There's no smiles and laughs while walking down the fucking train tracks in this not so feel good movie. The performances by these kids. Even the youngest one... Who you kind of want to kick in the face... puts in a stellar showing. The lead girl. With her serial killer like lack of emotion and empathy. If there were Oscars for horror. She would most definitely be nominated. Even the one kid who shows some form of common sense. Has not one real redeeming quality. These kids are just plain horrid. You literally wish death upon these teenagers
Second. The originality of the whole thing. I know it will probably garner some comparisons to Psycho Goreman. But... Believe me when i tell you... There is no similarity. These are two completely seperate entities.
The idea of Urban Legends coming true. And not being projected by some killer in a parka. makes me extremely happy. Not a slight against the series of Urban Legend movies... I love them... But...
Third. I love the pace of the film. It keeps going, doesn't let up in the slightest. Just when you think you've seen it all. The little bastards just break down the morality wall a little bit more. Such a fun ride to be on.
Was it worth the wait. Absolutely.
Would I recommend it to my friends.... 100%.
Will it be something I'd watch again... I'm actually watching it again... Right now... While I do this review.
Mr. Smith, you've done it again.
You have kept my interest and left me utterly satisfied with an hour and a half of pure horrific pleasure.
Not one stitch of disappointment here...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 11, 2021
The two Emmas (2 more)
The rest of the ensemble cast
The technical team: cinematography, hair & make-up; costuming
An astonishing attack on the senses as Disney goes to the dark side.
Positives:
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
