Search
PB
Patronising Bastards
Book
Not since Marie Antoinette said 'Let them eat cake' have the peasants been so revolting. Western...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Typical Oscar Fodder
There are two types of film critic when it comes to the Academy Awards. Those who enjoy the glamour that the Oscars bring every spring and those who despise what the awards mean for film. I’m in the latter camp, I find them out of touch with what movie-watching audiences enjoy and feel an overhaul is necessary to reflect that.
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Good Will Hunting (1997) in Movies
Jul 9, 2021
Well Deserved Oscars for Williams, Damon and Affleck
One of the benefits of “Secret Movie Night” is that it forces me to watch (or rewatch) a film that I would not seek out on my own. Such is the case with this month’s selection - GOOD WILL HUNTING - the film that made Matt Damon and Ben Affleck stars and earned the late, great Robin Williams his only Academy Award.
Leaning hard on the mantra “write what you know”, GOOD WILL HUNTING tells the tale of a generationally talented math prodigy, who grew up in South Boston and fights his demons to find his place in this world.
Famously, the screenplay of this film earned Damon and Affleck Oscars for Best Original Screenplay and it is well deserved. They paint a picture of life of these “Southies” that appears to me real and genuine. The “family” feel of the friendship of the main characters rings true and Damon and Affleck have real chemistry with each other - like old friends playing off each other.
However, the relationship between Affleck and Damon’s character in this film is only the 3rd best relationship in this film. The best, of course, is the relationship between Will Hunting (Damon) and the shrink that is assigned to him, played by Robin Williams. It is a haunting, raw, emotional and REAL performance by Williams - one very deserving of the Oscar - and I was more than a little sad to watch this performance knowing that this uniquely talented performer is no longer with us.
The surprise to me in this rewatch of the film is the performance of Minnie Driver as a young lady that becomes emotionally attached to Will. Driver’s performance as Harvard student Skylar is also real and the struggles of her character to get a connection with Will was heartbreaking to watch.
Good Will Hunting also features strong supporting work by Stellan Skarsgard as the MIT Math Professor who discovers - and then becomes jealous of - Will’s talents and Ben Affleck’s younger brother, a then unknown Casey Affleck, who steals almost every scene he is in.
All of this would not have worked without the magnificent, Oscar nominated, Direction of Gus Van Sant (DRUGSTORE COWBOY). He was the perfect choice to direct this intimate, personal drama and he has a way of drawing out the emotions and rawness of the characters on the screen without being cloying or overdramatic. He was a strong contender for Best Director that year (as was Good Will Hunting for Best Picture) but it ran into a roadblock that was James Cameron and TITANIC.
If you have never seen this film - or if you haven’t seen this in quite some time - check out GOOD WILL HUNTING, it is well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Leaning hard on the mantra “write what you know”, GOOD WILL HUNTING tells the tale of a generationally talented math prodigy, who grew up in South Boston and fights his demons to find his place in this world.
Famously, the screenplay of this film earned Damon and Affleck Oscars for Best Original Screenplay and it is well deserved. They paint a picture of life of these “Southies” that appears to me real and genuine. The “family” feel of the friendship of the main characters rings true and Damon and Affleck have real chemistry with each other - like old friends playing off each other.
However, the relationship between Affleck and Damon’s character in this film is only the 3rd best relationship in this film. The best, of course, is the relationship between Will Hunting (Damon) and the shrink that is assigned to him, played by Robin Williams. It is a haunting, raw, emotional and REAL performance by Williams - one very deserving of the Oscar - and I was more than a little sad to watch this performance knowing that this uniquely talented performer is no longer with us.
The surprise to me in this rewatch of the film is the performance of Minnie Driver as a young lady that becomes emotionally attached to Will. Driver’s performance as Harvard student Skylar is also real and the struggles of her character to get a connection with Will was heartbreaking to watch.
Good Will Hunting also features strong supporting work by Stellan Skarsgard as the MIT Math Professor who discovers - and then becomes jealous of - Will’s talents and Ben Affleck’s younger brother, a then unknown Casey Affleck, who steals almost every scene he is in.
All of this would not have worked without the magnificent, Oscar nominated, Direction of Gus Van Sant (DRUGSTORE COWBOY). He was the perfect choice to direct this intimate, personal drama and he has a way of drawing out the emotions and rawness of the characters on the screen without being cloying or overdramatic. He was a strong contender for Best Director that year (as was Good Will Hunting for Best Picture) but it ran into a roadblock that was James Cameron and TITANIC.
If you have never seen this film - or if you haven’t seen this in quite some time - check out GOOD WILL HUNTING, it is well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Doom: Annihilation (2019) in Movies
Jul 19, 2020
Pretty dire
Let’s be honest, the first Doom film was never going to win any Oscars but it at least had a lot of cheesy and fun charm alongside a fairly star studded cast. Sadly this reboot has no such qualities.
To start with, you can tell this is a very low budget film. The whole thing just looks cheap, from the poorly built sets to the costumes and props. It just has an overall feel of a cheap made for TV movie. And then there’s the cast and the script, both of which are incredibly dire. The acting for the most part is terrible, although I did have a soft spot for the rather over the top and hilarious Australian Winslow. One good thing about this is they at least use mostly physical effects, which is probably because the CGI is awful when it is eventually used. That said, some of the physical effects are pretty atrocious too. The creatures when they eventually show up (after the weird zombie like creatures that aren’t Doom in the slightest), they’re obviously just a bloke in a suit and a very badly made suit at that. The creatures aren’t scary, they’re just funny and actually reminded me of the bad guys you used to see on Power Rangers.
There are some films that are so bad they’re good, but sadly this isn’t one of them. This is just plain awful and really didn’t need to be made.
To start with, you can tell this is a very low budget film. The whole thing just looks cheap, from the poorly built sets to the costumes and props. It just has an overall feel of a cheap made for TV movie. And then there’s the cast and the script, both of which are incredibly dire. The acting for the most part is terrible, although I did have a soft spot for the rather over the top and hilarious Australian Winslow. One good thing about this is they at least use mostly physical effects, which is probably because the CGI is awful when it is eventually used. That said, some of the physical effects are pretty atrocious too. The creatures when they eventually show up (after the weird zombie like creatures that aren’t Doom in the slightest), they’re obviously just a bloke in a suit and a very badly made suit at that. The creatures aren’t scary, they’re just funny and actually reminded me of the bad guys you used to see on Power Rangers.
There are some films that are so bad they’re good, but sadly this isn’t one of them. This is just plain awful and really didn’t need to be made.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
Objectively horrendous but a ton of fun, pretty much what one of those later MCU entries *should* feel like. A lot of fast-talking verbiage and flashiness which every single one of these stylish, ADHD biopics (which, for the record I enjoy incomparably more than the unbearable, cursory ones that get nominated for Oscars) stole from 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘰𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵 - which I was convinced I'd never get tired of but I confess is actually starting to get pretty rote here. Like okay do we really need to halt the already legendarily messy and borderline unfollowable plotline so you can describe what the sticker on the fucking cheese platter says? It's also one of those movies where the acting is nice but nobody actually plays a real human (for better [Chastain, Cera, Strong, Costner] or worse [poor Elba]). The dialogue is, as you can imagine, unadulterated Sorkin which leads to some very amusing cringe without the filter this time around. I like it, pretty much a collection of rousing scenes that look and play nice but don't fit together too well (at all) on the whole. Best part is easily those iconic Chastain outfits. A much better poker movie than it is a true story movie, and a lot of the banter is stilted - but worth it entirely for the title character calling Michael Cera (playing a power-hungry real life Tobey Maguire) a "green-screened little shit".
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Battle of Algiers (1966) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
This film-maker was unknown to me entirely before I decided to watch this film. In fact, I had only heard of the film itself quite recently from seeing it mentioned as one of the best films in the genre as a commentary on political insurgency and civil unrest. It is so well regarded that even the US military used it to prepare troops for entering Iraq. The main actors are largely unknown and many of the supporting cast and extras are not actors at all. The camera is allowed to wander and wobble, and such is the feel of random chaos at times you’d be forgiven for thinking this was a documentary. Nominated for 3 Oscars, and faultless in achieving its goal of humanising both sides of an argument, you can see the influence on Oliver Stone and Paul Greengrass, to name but two better known directors with a political edge.
It’s not a film I would feel the need to go back to, unless demonstrating to someone how to make something staged feel entirely real. I admire this film very much, but wouldn’t exactly call it entertaining or even rewarding as a story. Its purpose is to reinforce the tragedy of a people facing oppression and to realise the lengths both sides will go to in protecting their ideals and relative freedoms. The excellent hand held photography and score by the always inspirational Ennio Moricone are other reasons to watch it. As a history lesson of North Africa post WWII it also has a lot to offer.
It’s not a film I would feel the need to go back to, unless demonstrating to someone how to make something staged feel entirely real. I admire this film very much, but wouldn’t exactly call it entertaining or even rewarding as a story. Its purpose is to reinforce the tragedy of a people facing oppression and to realise the lengths both sides will go to in protecting their ideals and relative freedoms. The excellent hand held photography and score by the always inspirational Ennio Moricone are other reasons to watch it. As a history lesson of North Africa post WWII it also has a lot to offer.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
This generation's Driving Miss Daisy
The 2018 Academy Awards were interesting. On one hand, I was very happy boring, pointless Roma did not win Best Picture; however i was really pulling for The Favourite to win. Neither happened and Green Book snuck in and captured the top prize instead.
The modern Oscars are free of epics like Ben-Hur, The Sound of Music or West Side Story. Instead, character-driven stories seem to be in favor recently.
In this true story, recently unemployed Italian bouncer Tony "Lip" gets hired to drive an African American genius concert pianist throughout his fall tour of the deep southern United States in 1962.
As the two men get to know each other, they are exposed to the very different worlds and set of values the each possesses. Initial hesitation is replaced by eventual respect as the men grow a bond throughout their southern adventure as they confront racism in various threatening or nonchalant forms as is happens.
Tony comes to the aide of his client, Dr. Donald Shirley, several times revealing his bigotry and denial for his race has begun to wane. Dr. Shirley as well begins to understand Tony's rough exterior and even delights Tony's wife Cyrano de Bergerac style assistance in writing verbose and eloquent letters to her.
The acting is thorough and top notch by both Viggo Mortensen (one of the great working actors today) and Mahershala Ali (hot off of Moonlight) with a screenplay to match. The characters are flawed, vivid, well-rounded and interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed this memorable film and well deserved of the big prize.
The modern Oscars are free of epics like Ben-Hur, The Sound of Music or West Side Story. Instead, character-driven stories seem to be in favor recently.
In this true story, recently unemployed Italian bouncer Tony "Lip" gets hired to drive an African American genius concert pianist throughout his fall tour of the deep southern United States in 1962.
As the two men get to know each other, they are exposed to the very different worlds and set of values the each possesses. Initial hesitation is replaced by eventual respect as the men grow a bond throughout their southern adventure as they confront racism in various threatening or nonchalant forms as is happens.
Tony comes to the aide of his client, Dr. Donald Shirley, several times revealing his bigotry and denial for his race has begun to wane. Dr. Shirley as well begins to understand Tony's rough exterior and even delights Tony's wife Cyrano de Bergerac style assistance in writing verbose and eloquent letters to her.
The acting is thorough and top notch by both Viggo Mortensen (one of the great working actors today) and Mahershala Ali (hot off of Moonlight) with a screenplay to match. The characters are flawed, vivid, well-rounded and interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed this memorable film and well deserved of the big prize.
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
8.8
Rate It
Movie Watch
Meticulously directed by David Lean at a then-record studio cost of $13 million, the Sam Spiegel...
MB
Mel Brooks FAQ: All That's Left to Know About the Outrageous Genius of Comedy
Book
Born to be the centre of attention, Mel Brooks grew up learning the ropes of entertainment in the...
Tookey's Turkeys: The Most Annoying 144 Films from the Last 25 Years
Book
Christopher Tookey has seen at least 10,000 films. For eight years, he was TV and then film critic...