Search
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Children of a Lesser God (1986) in Movies
Sep 19, 2020
Unfortunately doesn't come out entirely unscathed from stage to screen, a touch too long and a touch too slow for this to be consistently potent - and some segments are a bit too writerly even for me as well as the occasional Broadway banality here and there that sort of brings this to a lull in the middle. But all the same, this is surprisingly complex and fragile filmmaking on the subject for 1986. On a technical note the music and visuals are hushed rhapsody together, and I particularly admire how there's an expressive intimacy in the conversations Hurt has with deaf characters whereas there's this palpably cold distance in the ones he has with hearing ones - an aspect that seems almost intrinsic. And on that note I also have to appreciate how it confronts Hurt's fixer mentality *as well as* Matlin's resistant anger rather than making the deaf character ultimately bend to the will of the 'virtuous helper' 'for their own good'. William Hurt is sensational, and Marlee Matlin is in one of the top-tier greatest performances of the 80s - the fact that they self-gratifyingly gave her their pity award and then immediately refused to cast her in much else is evidence #18,000 on why the Oscars are rancid bullshit. On top of all of that it's packed with awesome scenes and it's just a damn good romance... though if I have one more quibble: do the hearing characters really need to repeat aloud every fucking thing the deaf characters sign to them to absolutely no one at all but themselves like they're talking to a toddler? This really couldn't have been subtitled? But I digress, I still cried multiple times so we aight.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 4, 2019 (Updated Nov 4, 2019)
The Killing Joke
I finally saw Joker yesterday with a full crowd of people in the theater. Which i was surpise of because it has been out for a month now. But the crowd and i loved Joker.
This is my favorite movie so far of this year. It is psychological, horrorfying, and it takes the Joker charcter on a whole nother level. Joker takes place in the 80's and as a origin movie, Joker is dark, twisted, moody, and terrorfying movie.
Joaquin Phoenix, Frances Conroy and Robert De Niro are excellent in this movie. Both Joaquin Phoenix and Frances Conroy should get nomiated for the oscars.
Joaquin Phoenix takes elements from Cesar Ramero's Joker, Jack Nicolson's Joker and Heath Ledgar and make its it his own. His laugh is perfect. Its scary and so phenomal.
Lets talk about the plot: Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks -- the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he's part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
The way their protray Gotham City in the 80's is perfect. Gotham City, this time is New York City and I think thats perfect.
Joker is the first live-action theatrical Batman film to receive an R-rating from the Motion Picture Association of America, due to its violent and disturbing content. It is also the best DC film since The Dark Knight Rises.
Joker is a memorizing movie, it is psychological, it is twisted, dark and gloomy.
Joker is a highly reccordmend movie, if you havent seen it yet, than i highly reccordmend you see it.
This is my favorite movie so far of this year. It is psychological, horrorfying, and it takes the Joker charcter on a whole nother level. Joker takes place in the 80's and as a origin movie, Joker is dark, twisted, moody, and terrorfying movie.
Joaquin Phoenix, Frances Conroy and Robert De Niro are excellent in this movie. Both Joaquin Phoenix and Frances Conroy should get nomiated for the oscars.
Joaquin Phoenix takes elements from Cesar Ramero's Joker, Jack Nicolson's Joker and Heath Ledgar and make its it his own. His laugh is perfect. Its scary and so phenomal.
Lets talk about the plot: Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks -- the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he's part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
The way their protray Gotham City in the 80's is perfect. Gotham City, this time is New York City and I think thats perfect.
Joker is the first live-action theatrical Batman film to receive an R-rating from the Motion Picture Association of America, due to its violent and disturbing content. It is also the best DC film since The Dark Knight Rises.
Joker is a memorizing movie, it is psychological, it is twisted, dark and gloomy.
Joker is a highly reccordmend movie, if you havent seen it yet, than i highly reccordmend you see it.
JT (287 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Brilliant cinematography (2 more)
Great score
Fantastic central characters
A stunning film which hits hard both physically and emotionally
particular emphasis on cinematography. The World War I film is made to look like one continuous shot by director Sam Mendes whose one-shot opening of Spectre gave us a taste of things to come.
The film swept awards season with the film winning Best Drama Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, not to mention cleaning up at the BAFTAs. This was a strong indication that Mendes might have a hand on a couple of Oscars.
1917 tells the story of two Lance Corporals, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) who are tasked with hand-delivering a message to another battalion who are inadvertently walking into a trap – Blake’s brother among them. If they fail then 1,600 men will lose their lives.
Blake and Schofield have been through a lot. When we first meet them they are relaxing beneath a tree, taking a break trying to enjoy the peaceful surroundings.
Without so much as a thought the pair salute General Erinmore (Colin Firth) and start the first part of their harrowing journey crossing no man’s land. The film is gripping in every sense of the word and you feel as if you are making the treacherous journey with them.
The scenery is devastatingly realistic, particularly the trip across no man’s land where charred bodies are buried deep in bombed-out craters of mud, their faces starring out in a look of shock.
The cast is limited to a few big-name cameos which aren’t blink and you miss them. Joining Firth is Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch who make a significant impression in key scenes. The film flows incredibly well and never takes a back step, quite literally.
This is a journey that rivals Saving Private Ryan for it’s impactfulness, and why the memories of those who fought in the great war should always be forever remembered as true heroes.
The film swept awards season with the film winning Best Drama Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, not to mention cleaning up at the BAFTAs. This was a strong indication that Mendes might have a hand on a couple of Oscars.
1917 tells the story of two Lance Corporals, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) who are tasked with hand-delivering a message to another battalion who are inadvertently walking into a trap – Blake’s brother among them. If they fail then 1,600 men will lose their lives.
Blake and Schofield have been through a lot. When we first meet them they are relaxing beneath a tree, taking a break trying to enjoy the peaceful surroundings.
Without so much as a thought the pair salute General Erinmore (Colin Firth) and start the first part of their harrowing journey crossing no man’s land. The film is gripping in every sense of the word and you feel as if you are making the treacherous journey with them.
The scenery is devastatingly realistic, particularly the trip across no man’s land where charred bodies are buried deep in bombed-out craters of mud, their faces starring out in a look of shock.
The cast is limited to a few big-name cameos which aren’t blink and you miss them. Joining Firth is Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch who make a significant impression in key scenes. The film flows incredibly well and never takes a back step, quite literally.
This is a journey that rivals Saving Private Ryan for it’s impactfulness, and why the memories of those who fought in the great war should always be forever remembered as true heroes.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Waltz With Bashir (2008) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021
This is the fifth in the series of films I would recommend to an alien to explain humanity. Not, as posted on the Instagram account, #6 – sorry for the confusion, I think I skipped #4 on there when posting for Schindler’s List a few weeks ago. Anyway… today’s choice is Ari Folman’s extraordinary antiwar film from 2008, which combines several forms of animation and live action footage to create a dreamlike landscape of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and one man’s journey to reconstruct his own lost memories of events.
I saw this when working at The Cameo Cinema in Edinburgh on release. It was the kind of thing I loved to discover that I wouldn’t normally have paid to see. Its impact on me was immediate, and I went back to see it 3 more times. When it was released on DVD in 2009, it became my go to movie to gift to people who I knew would love it but may not have even heard of it, due to its low profile arthouse origins. It was nominated in the Best Foreign Language Film category at the Oscars, but otherwise went under the radar in many ways. I still doubt it has been seen by a quarter of the people who would immediately say it was one of the most amazing films they had ever seen.
The animation may seem gimmicky at first, but once you identify its utility in this context and understand this is not a film for children, it becomes a transcendent trip of vibrant colour, emotion and… humanity. I would call it as indispensable an antiwar movie as Apocalypse Now, and in many ways so much more moving than that classic. If you have yet to see it, do yourself a favour, pick a time you can reflect and allow the dreamlike quality to carry you away.
I saw this when working at The Cameo Cinema in Edinburgh on release. It was the kind of thing I loved to discover that I wouldn’t normally have paid to see. Its impact on me was immediate, and I went back to see it 3 more times. When it was released on DVD in 2009, it became my go to movie to gift to people who I knew would love it but may not have even heard of it, due to its low profile arthouse origins. It was nominated in the Best Foreign Language Film category at the Oscars, but otherwise went under the radar in many ways. I still doubt it has been seen by a quarter of the people who would immediately say it was one of the most amazing films they had ever seen.
The animation may seem gimmicky at first, but once you identify its utility in this context and understand this is not a film for children, it becomes a transcendent trip of vibrant colour, emotion and… humanity. I would call it as indispensable an antiwar movie as Apocalypse Now, and in many ways so much more moving than that classic. If you have yet to see it, do yourself a favour, pick a time you can reflect and allow the dreamlike quality to carry you away.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Under Siege (1992) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
Cheesy But Leaves An Impact
A short order cook on a navy ship has to fight off terrorists that have taken control.
Acting: 6
When I think acting chops, please believe I’m not referring to Steven Seagal. It’s rough watching him spit out lines. The majority of the other actors aren’t really any better save for an underrated performance by Tommy Lee Jones. If you’re looking for quality thespians, look elsewhere.
Beginning: 6
Characters: 7
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
There are some quality shots here, although things are a bit jumbled at times. I do have to give credit to Andrew Davis as I’m sure it was a challenge doing a movie solely below deck of a ship. I definitely wouldn’t want that challenge. Not much to be desired, I appreciated he did the best he could with the little he was given.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 7
Cheesy, but definitely leaves enough of an impact where I would watch it again. It’s a great movie to check out while folding clothes or doing any other mindless task. Steven Seagal definitely leaves behind some fun action moments that make the movie worthwhile.
Pace: 7
Plot: 7
Cheesy? Sure. Original? Absolutely. It sounds ridiculous but I have to give the story credit for trying to branch out and try something new, especially during the early 90’s when martial arts movies were all the rage. It’s not winning any Oscars, but I’ve seen worse stories from movies that have tried harder.
Resolution: 10
Great ending that brings the movie to a nice close. I like that it fits perfectly in line with the rest of the cheesiness of the movie. Great way to wrap things up.
Overall: 73
For what it’s worth, Under Siege doesn’t do anything exceptionally well, but it doesn’t do anything terribly bad either. It’s a fun movie if you have time to kill. Definitely one of my favorite Tommy Lee Jones roles.
Acting: 6
When I think acting chops, please believe I’m not referring to Steven Seagal. It’s rough watching him spit out lines. The majority of the other actors aren’t really any better save for an underrated performance by Tommy Lee Jones. If you’re looking for quality thespians, look elsewhere.
Beginning: 6
Characters: 7
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
There are some quality shots here, although things are a bit jumbled at times. I do have to give credit to Andrew Davis as I’m sure it was a challenge doing a movie solely below deck of a ship. I definitely wouldn’t want that challenge. Not much to be desired, I appreciated he did the best he could with the little he was given.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 7
Cheesy, but definitely leaves enough of an impact where I would watch it again. It’s a great movie to check out while folding clothes or doing any other mindless task. Steven Seagal definitely leaves behind some fun action moments that make the movie worthwhile.
Pace: 7
Plot: 7
Cheesy? Sure. Original? Absolutely. It sounds ridiculous but I have to give the story credit for trying to branch out and try something new, especially during the early 90’s when martial arts movies were all the rage. It’s not winning any Oscars, but I’ve seen worse stories from movies that have tried harder.
Resolution: 10
Great ending that brings the movie to a nice close. I like that it fits perfectly in line with the rest of the cheesiness of the movie. Great way to wrap things up.
Overall: 73
For what it’s worth, Under Siege doesn’t do anything exceptionally well, but it doesn’t do anything terribly bad either. It’s a fun movie if you have time to kill. Definitely one of my favorite Tommy Lee Jones roles.
ABC – Live TV & Full Episodes
Entertainment and Lifestyle
App
Catch up on the latest episodes* of your favorite ABC shows, watch on-the-go, and stream live** TV -...
Nick Beaty (70 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
De Niro is the best he has been in a long time...
First off any movie that has Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci and Martin Scorsese connected to it has me from the get go.
De Niro is the best he has been in a long time as mob hitman Frank Sheeran, Joe Pesci is excellent in a much more reserved role as Russell Bufalino and Al Pacino is superb as the loud and brash Jimmy Hoffa. All the buzz is around the three lead actors, as all have been nominated for Oscars. Although for me Stephen Graham more than holds his own alongside these legends, as the cocky and destructive 'Tony Pro'. Some of the best scenes are with him and Pacino not seeing eye to eye on various occasions.
Personally I felt it wasn't as Scorsese as I expected, it didn't have the same narrative or feel as say Goodfellas or Casino, I'm not saying that is a bad thing as it's still a very good movie, it's just not on their level in my opinion.
There has been a lot of talk about the 3 hour 29 minutes running time. I personally don't understand all the fuss, as there have been many classic, award winning movies even longer than this. Gone with the Wind took home the Oscar in 1940 and ran a whopping 3h 58m. Ben Hur won best picture in 1960 at 3h 32m and more recently Titanic in 1998 was slightly less at 3h 14m.
I also feel the need to mention a couple of scenes that felt very reminiscent of one of my favourite movies Pulp Fiction. The opening sequence when the words 'I heard you paint houses' flash on the screen felt very Tarantino and the whole car scene with Jesse Plemons & Louis Cancelmi talking about the fish, was very Jule's & Vincent like. I'm not sure if that is just me or whether other people agree.
Overall I get that it is a long movie and people have very busy lives but if you get the chance you really should watch it, just to see these big screen legends at work and doing what they do best.
De Niro is the best he has been in a long time as mob hitman Frank Sheeran, Joe Pesci is excellent in a much more reserved role as Russell Bufalino and Al Pacino is superb as the loud and brash Jimmy Hoffa. All the buzz is around the three lead actors, as all have been nominated for Oscars. Although for me Stephen Graham more than holds his own alongside these legends, as the cocky and destructive 'Tony Pro'. Some of the best scenes are with him and Pacino not seeing eye to eye on various occasions.
Personally I felt it wasn't as Scorsese as I expected, it didn't have the same narrative or feel as say Goodfellas or Casino, I'm not saying that is a bad thing as it's still a very good movie, it's just not on their level in my opinion.
There has been a lot of talk about the 3 hour 29 minutes running time. I personally don't understand all the fuss, as there have been many classic, award winning movies even longer than this. Gone with the Wind took home the Oscar in 1940 and ran a whopping 3h 58m. Ben Hur won best picture in 1960 at 3h 32m and more recently Titanic in 1998 was slightly less at 3h 14m.
I also feel the need to mention a couple of scenes that felt very reminiscent of one of my favourite movies Pulp Fiction. The opening sequence when the words 'I heard you paint houses' flash on the screen felt very Tarantino and the whole car scene with Jesse Plemons & Louis Cancelmi talking about the fish, was very Jule's & Vincent like. I'm not sure if that is just me or whether other people agree.
Overall I get that it is a long movie and people have very busy lives but if you get the chance you really should watch it, just to see these big screen legends at work and doing what they do best.
HM
Henry Mancini: Reinventing Film Music
Book
Henry Mancini, the first publicly successful and personally recognizable film composer in history,...
MP
Making Patton: A Classic War Film's Epic Journey to the Silver Screen
8.0
Rate It
Book
Forever known for its blazing cinematic image of General George S. Patton (portrayed by George C....
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2020
The more films I see by James Mangold, the more I like him.
Ford v Ferrari (or Le Mans '66 as it's titled in the UK) is an outstanding movie in every way.
Based on a true story, FvF follows car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and race driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) after they are commissioned by Ford to create a new race car capable of beating the notorious Ferrari team during the Le Mans endurance race in France.
I'm not really into racing - I'm not a big sports guy full stop - but this film balances the amount of racing action and heartfelt and frequently humourous drama perfectly.
Both Matt Damon and Christian Bale just bought everything they have to this, and straight up deserved Oscars - I would actually go as far as saying this is arguably Bales' best performance to date.
The supporting cast are fantastic as well, especially Caitriona Balfe as the wife of Ken Miles, Mollie. The chemistry between her and Bales' character is believable and sweet.
I also enjoyed Josh Lucas as smarmy Ford executive Leo Beebe, and detested his character with a passion. And of course Jon Bernthal - I'm yet to see him in anything where he is less than great.
The story is inspiring to say the least, and the screenplay is clever in the way that it focuses on the every day character like Ken Miles, has you rooting for him against the suits, people who put money and profit in front of knowledge. It's a relatable feeling.
As I mentioned, I'm not a big sports guy, so taking this into account, the racing scenes (of which there are a fair few) were nothing short of thrilling. They're really well shot, with seamless special effects, and full of tension. In fact, every inch of Ford v Ferrari feels like it's had so much love, attention, and detail poured into it. It's an all round great experience.
I haven't a single bad word to say about Ford v Ferrari, it's spectacular, full of soul, and easily one of the best films of 2019.
Ford v Ferrari (or Le Mans '66 as it's titled in the UK) is an outstanding movie in every way.
Based on a true story, FvF follows car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and race driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) after they are commissioned by Ford to create a new race car capable of beating the notorious Ferrari team during the Le Mans endurance race in France.
I'm not really into racing - I'm not a big sports guy full stop - but this film balances the amount of racing action and heartfelt and frequently humourous drama perfectly.
Both Matt Damon and Christian Bale just bought everything they have to this, and straight up deserved Oscars - I would actually go as far as saying this is arguably Bales' best performance to date.
The supporting cast are fantastic as well, especially Caitriona Balfe as the wife of Ken Miles, Mollie. The chemistry between her and Bales' character is believable and sweet.
I also enjoyed Josh Lucas as smarmy Ford executive Leo Beebe, and detested his character with a passion. And of course Jon Bernthal - I'm yet to see him in anything where he is less than great.
The story is inspiring to say the least, and the screenplay is clever in the way that it focuses on the every day character like Ken Miles, has you rooting for him against the suits, people who put money and profit in front of knowledge. It's a relatable feeling.
As I mentioned, I'm not a big sports guy, so taking this into account, the racing scenes (of which there are a fair few) were nothing short of thrilling. They're really well shot, with seamless special effects, and full of tension. In fact, every inch of Ford v Ferrari feels like it's had so much love, attention, and detail poured into it. It's an all round great experience.
I haven't a single bad word to say about Ford v Ferrari, it's spectacular, full of soul, and easily one of the best films of 2019.