Search
IMDb Movies & TV
Entertainment, Lifestyle and Reference
8.6
Rate It
App
IMDb – the world’s most popular and authoritative source for movie, TV, and celebrity content. ...
Movies TV MovieStars Credits MoviePhotos
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated West Side Story (2021) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Very Good...but could have (SHOULD HAVE) been GREAT
One of the biggest disappointments in watching a Motion Picture is when a Film has all of the ingredients to be a GREAT film, but is knocked off this tier by one flaw - and sometimes - is knocked down to merely good by an egregious flaw.
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Merissa (11797 KP) rated The Artist's Touch (Book 1 of The Artist's Touch Books) in Books
Dec 17, 2018
There is so much going on in this book, I honestly don't know where to start! Okay, deep breath, here we go.
First of all, Rissa - she is feisty, sassy, honest, truthful and forthright. I love her. When she literally tumbles into the lap of Spencer, she knows that she wants to know him more so goes for it. I loved this bit about her and, to be fair, Spencer was a real grump at this point in the book so when she refused to take his **** and met him head-on, I was cheering for her.
Spence - wow, there is so much more to this guy than you originally thing. The quiet, geeky, artist man is just a façade. Trust me, as you read through this book, you will be amazed at the 180 he pulls, and you will be swept away with it just like Rissa was/is.
There are lots of supporting characters in here too that each deserve a mention, but this isn't the Oscars, so I won't. What I will say is that each do their job very well, allowing you to get to know the main characters in different situations, without being overpowering.
Our two main characters are 'real'! They have their faults, their ups and downs. One of my favourite bits of the book is when Rissa is curled up due to her monthly onslaught. I could so relate to this, I'm sure most women could, but it's not something usually written about. Spencer has a temper but Rissa isn't afraid of it. She knows that Spencer wouldn't hurt her, so gives him the space he needs to regain his equilibrium.
The levels of mystery and suspense layer on as you read through. I think I know who the mysterious voice is, but I'm not saying as I'm sure I'll be wrong! There are just too many twists, turns and possibilities right now.
Exceedingly well-written, with an intricate, interesting plot, smoothly paced and HOT, this was one enjoyable read! I can't wait for book 2 to come out already.
Please note that no dogs were actually forced to listen to a Justin Bieber CD in the making of this book!
* I received this book from the author in return for a fair and honest review. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
First of all, Rissa - she is feisty, sassy, honest, truthful and forthright. I love her. When she literally tumbles into the lap of Spencer, she knows that she wants to know him more so goes for it. I loved this bit about her and, to be fair, Spencer was a real grump at this point in the book so when she refused to take his **** and met him head-on, I was cheering for her.
Spence - wow, there is so much more to this guy than you originally thing. The quiet, geeky, artist man is just a façade. Trust me, as you read through this book, you will be amazed at the 180 he pulls, and you will be swept away with it just like Rissa was/is.
There are lots of supporting characters in here too that each deserve a mention, but this isn't the Oscars, so I won't. What I will say is that each do their job very well, allowing you to get to know the main characters in different situations, without being overpowering.
Our two main characters are 'real'! They have their faults, their ups and downs. One of my favourite bits of the book is when Rissa is curled up due to her monthly onslaught. I could so relate to this, I'm sure most women could, but it's not something usually written about. Spencer has a temper but Rissa isn't afraid of it. She knows that Spencer wouldn't hurt her, so gives him the space he needs to regain his equilibrium.
The levels of mystery and suspense layer on as you read through. I think I know who the mysterious voice is, but I'm not saying as I'm sure I'll be wrong! There are just too many twists, turns and possibilities right now.
Exceedingly well-written, with an intricate, interesting plot, smoothly paced and HOT, this was one enjoyable read! I can't wait for book 2 to come out already.
Please note that no dogs were actually forced to listen to a Justin Bieber CD in the making of this book!
* I received this book from the author in return for a fair and honest review. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Violent night (2022) in Movies
Dec 27, 2023
A Ton of Fun
The 2022 “Christmas” movie VIOLENT NIGHT was mis-marketed a year ago as ads made it appear that this was just another “slasher” flick, when…in fact…it is a fun action flick that settles the DIE HARD Christmas movie debate once and for all.
Compared to VIOLENT NIGHT, DIE HARD is not a Christmas movie for VIOLENT NIGHT (which is a DIE HARD knock-off) is MOST DEFINITELY a Christmas Movie, but instead of former Cop John McClane thwarting bad guys, it is SANTA CLAUS.
Yes, you read that right, Santa Claus.
Director Tommy Wirkola got the idea for VIOLENT NIGHT when watching another Christmas Classic - HOME ALONE. He thought that the traps Kevin sets up for the crooks would really do some physical damage to people and decided to make a movie that did just that…add a dash of “Die Hard with Santa Claus” and…voila…you got yourself a fun action flick.
David Harbour (STRANGER THINGS) hits just the right notes as a burned out Santa Claus who just wants to get through the night, but when he is stranded in an isolated compound (when his reindeer are scared away by gunfire) he must decide to stay and help or stay out of the way.
Jon Leguizamo (MOULIN ROUGE) is the “Hans Gruber” of this piece - a mercenary named SCROOGE and he is a “good enough” villain. While Leah Brady is “charming enough” as the little girl that Santa decides to help. All the rest of the hostages and mercenaries (including CHRISTMAS VACATION’s Beverly D’Angelo) are underwritten “cannon fodder” for the action that takes place.
And…that is just fine as this is an action/comedy flick, so the enjoyment lies in the creativity that Santa (and others) use in dispatching the bad guys. Candy Canes, Christmas Stars, Ice Skates and…yes…SnowThrowers are all used to the advantage of the good guys (and the ultimate demise of the bad guys).
It’s not going to win any Oscars, but Violent Night is a fun “anti-Holiday” action film that the older folks in the crowd will enjoy later at night after the kiddo-s go to bed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: Violent Night is streaming for free (with your Amazon Prime subscription) or you can rent or own it in many of the usual ways.
Compared to VIOLENT NIGHT, DIE HARD is not a Christmas movie for VIOLENT NIGHT (which is a DIE HARD knock-off) is MOST DEFINITELY a Christmas Movie, but instead of former Cop John McClane thwarting bad guys, it is SANTA CLAUS.
Yes, you read that right, Santa Claus.
Director Tommy Wirkola got the idea for VIOLENT NIGHT when watching another Christmas Classic - HOME ALONE. He thought that the traps Kevin sets up for the crooks would really do some physical damage to people and decided to make a movie that did just that…add a dash of “Die Hard with Santa Claus” and…voila…you got yourself a fun action flick.
David Harbour (STRANGER THINGS) hits just the right notes as a burned out Santa Claus who just wants to get through the night, but when he is stranded in an isolated compound (when his reindeer are scared away by gunfire) he must decide to stay and help or stay out of the way.
Jon Leguizamo (MOULIN ROUGE) is the “Hans Gruber” of this piece - a mercenary named SCROOGE and he is a “good enough” villain. While Leah Brady is “charming enough” as the little girl that Santa decides to help. All the rest of the hostages and mercenaries (including CHRISTMAS VACATION’s Beverly D’Angelo) are underwritten “cannon fodder” for the action that takes place.
And…that is just fine as this is an action/comedy flick, so the enjoyment lies in the creativity that Santa (and others) use in dispatching the bad guys. Candy Canes, Christmas Stars, Ice Skates and…yes…SnowThrowers are all used to the advantage of the good guys (and the ultimate demise of the bad guys).
It’s not going to win any Oscars, but Violent Night is a fun “anti-Holiday” action film that the older folks in the crowd will enjoy later at night after the kiddo-s go to bed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: Violent Night is streaming for free (with your Amazon Prime subscription) or you can rent or own it in many of the usual ways.
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.)
