Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rain Man (1988) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
Hoffman and Cruise pair well together
Some films grow over time, some diminish and others are unfairly maligned. I feel that such is the case with 1988's RAINMAN, the film that won 4 Oscars including Best Director, Actor and Picture. I, too, thought that this film might be "cringe-worthy" in the harsh light of 2020, so it was with some trepidation that we fired it up as my wife's choice for "Secret Cinema" in our house.
I need not have worried for this film, it's themes and performances hold up very, very well more than 30 years later.
Starring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise, RAINMAN tells the story of selfish, self-absorbed, high flying Charlie Babbitt who is shocked to discover that he did not inherit the estate of his estranged father - it went to his brother, Raymond (who Charlie knew nothing about). Finding out that Raymond is autistic, Charlie kidnaps Raymond, figuring he could con his way to his Father's fortune.
The first, most surprising, part of this film is the wonderful chemistry between Cruise and Hoffman. They play off each other very well and seem to have a natural rapport. Hoffman, of course, won the Oscar for Best Actor that year - and it is well deserved, even though some claim that his characterization of Raymond is a "gimmick". I think that is not giving the character - and the performance - it's due, for I found (on this rewatch) that Hoffman's portrayal of Raymond is layered, sensitive and sincere. He builds a character that you want to root for.
The surprise of this film is Cruise's performance as Charlie Babbitt. At the beginning he is playing the "yuppie" jerk quite well - focused only on himself - and his possessions and the money he can make, Charlie is not very likable and is, if I must confess, a bit one-dimensional to start. But something happens along the cross-country road trip that Charlie takes Raymond on - his character (and Cruise's performance) grows and shapes into a fully three-dimensional person that has good traits and bad traits. It is one of Cruise's finest performances - and it is a shame that it was not rewarded with an Oscar nomination.
Director Barry Levinson (Director of the under-rated gem DINER) does a nice job keeping the pace - and the mood - of the film moving forward. This could easily have devolved into an over-sentimental and "schmaltzy" feel good flick, Levinson finds the right balance to make this a "feel good" film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I need not have worried for this film, it's themes and performances hold up very, very well more than 30 years later.
Starring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise, RAINMAN tells the story of selfish, self-absorbed, high flying Charlie Babbitt who is shocked to discover that he did not inherit the estate of his estranged father - it went to his brother, Raymond (who Charlie knew nothing about). Finding out that Raymond is autistic, Charlie kidnaps Raymond, figuring he could con his way to his Father's fortune.
The first, most surprising, part of this film is the wonderful chemistry between Cruise and Hoffman. They play off each other very well and seem to have a natural rapport. Hoffman, of course, won the Oscar for Best Actor that year - and it is well deserved, even though some claim that his characterization of Raymond is a "gimmick". I think that is not giving the character - and the performance - it's due, for I found (on this rewatch) that Hoffman's portrayal of Raymond is layered, sensitive and sincere. He builds a character that you want to root for.
The surprise of this film is Cruise's performance as Charlie Babbitt. At the beginning he is playing the "yuppie" jerk quite well - focused only on himself - and his possessions and the money he can make, Charlie is not very likable and is, if I must confess, a bit one-dimensional to start. But something happens along the cross-country road trip that Charlie takes Raymond on - his character (and Cruise's performance) grows and shapes into a fully three-dimensional person that has good traits and bad traits. It is one of Cruise's finest performances - and it is a shame that it was not rewarded with an Oscar nomination.
Director Barry Levinson (Director of the under-rated gem DINER) does a nice job keeping the pace - and the mood - of the film moving forward. This could easily have devolved into an over-sentimental and "schmaltzy" feel good flick, Levinson finds the right balance to make this a "feel good" film.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated House of Gucci (2021) in Movies
Dec 7, 2021
If there was ever the perfect example of an incredible cast stuck inside a lackluster finished product, then House of Gucci is surely it.
The pacing is the main culprit. The first 45 minutes or so feel relatively breezy. The narrative unfolding is a fun and interesting one. The characters are all introduced well enough. But something happens around the midpoint that makes HoG feel like a slog, and it never quite recovers. For a story that has a very specific final destination, it manages to feel direction-less for quite a bit of the runtime. By the time the credits rolled, I felt like I'd run a marathon through thick mud.
The saving grace then, is the aforementioned cast. Lady Gaga turns in a magnificent performance, further cementing that she belongs in cinema. I've said before, and I'll say it again, I fucking love Adam Driver in pretty much everything he touches, and here is no different. The two leads together go a long way to ensure that HoG remains watchable. Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons could play these kind of roles in their sleep by now but their presence here is a welcome one. There's a specific scene somewhere within the first hour (I think) where it's just the two of them talking to eachother about their respective offspring, and it's like screen crack for me. Two masters at work. Then there's Jared Leto, who's portrayal of Paolo Gucci could definitely be deemed as excessive, full on Mario-esque accent and all, but he actually provides a huge dash of charisma in the duller moments so I can't complain too much.
All of the characters in this story are bad people to varying levels of degree, but they also command a certain level of sympathy, and to HoG's credit, this aspect is executed well, and 100% sold by it's great talent.
House of Gucci is nice to look at, boasts a top drawer ensemble cast, and has some genuine moments of excellence, but it's also overblown and overstuffed with hot air. I saw another review on here saying that it felt like it was made with the sole and transparent purpose of winning Oscars, and I can completely agree with that statement. Ridley Scott has made some of my absolute favourite films over the years, and while it does have its merits and is fun in parts, this one sadly feels a little self indulgent to really hit the mark.
The pacing is the main culprit. The first 45 minutes or so feel relatively breezy. The narrative unfolding is a fun and interesting one. The characters are all introduced well enough. But something happens around the midpoint that makes HoG feel like a slog, and it never quite recovers. For a story that has a very specific final destination, it manages to feel direction-less for quite a bit of the runtime. By the time the credits rolled, I felt like I'd run a marathon through thick mud.
The saving grace then, is the aforementioned cast. Lady Gaga turns in a magnificent performance, further cementing that she belongs in cinema. I've said before, and I'll say it again, I fucking love Adam Driver in pretty much everything he touches, and here is no different. The two leads together go a long way to ensure that HoG remains watchable. Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons could play these kind of roles in their sleep by now but their presence here is a welcome one. There's a specific scene somewhere within the first hour (I think) where it's just the two of them talking to eachother about their respective offspring, and it's like screen crack for me. Two masters at work. Then there's Jared Leto, who's portrayal of Paolo Gucci could definitely be deemed as excessive, full on Mario-esque accent and all, but he actually provides a huge dash of charisma in the duller moments so I can't complain too much.
All of the characters in this story are bad people to varying levels of degree, but they also command a certain level of sympathy, and to HoG's credit, this aspect is executed well, and 100% sold by it's great talent.
House of Gucci is nice to look at, boasts a top drawer ensemble cast, and has some genuine moments of excellence, but it's also overblown and overstuffed with hot air. I saw another review on here saying that it felt like it was made with the sole and transparent purpose of winning Oscars, and I can completely agree with that statement. Ridley Scott has made some of my absolute favourite films over the years, and while it does have its merits and is fun in parts, this one sadly feels a little self indulgent to really hit the mark.
TheFiend13420 (21 KP) rated Where The Scary Things Are (2022) in Movies
Jun 28, 2022 (Updated Jun 28, 2022)
Excellent performances by virtually unknown cast (2 more)
Well written, fun and flows well
Beauty make-up job on the creature
The Loser's Club these kids are NOT
I have been waiting for this film to come out for months now. And it was totally worth the wait.
A group of friends, led by angry disruptive Ayla, venture out to the closed down Field of Screams Halloween Haunt in search of a local urban legend. Prompted by one of their teachers, They are asked to make up their own Legend and try to bring it to life to prove how false facts can create a sort of mass hysteria. And eventually. They become real... Like local urban legend, Lockjaw.
First off... These fucking kids
None of them are likable. They all have something that makes them horrible. There's no smiles and laughs while walking down the fucking train tracks in this not so feel good movie. The performances by these kids. Even the youngest one... Who you kind of want to kick in the face... puts in a stellar showing. The lead girl. With her serial killer like lack of emotion and empathy. If there were Oscars for horror. She would most definitely be nominated. Even the one kid who shows some form of common sense. Has not one real redeeming quality. These kids are just plain horrid. You literally wish death upon these teenagers
Second. The originality of the whole thing. I know it will probably garner some comparisons to Psycho Goreman. But... Believe me when i tell you... There is no similarity. These are two completely seperate entities.
The idea of Urban Legends coming true. And not being projected by some killer in a parka. makes me extremely happy. Not a slight against the series of Urban Legend movies... I love them... But...
Third. I love the pace of the film. It keeps going, doesn't let up in the slightest. Just when you think you've seen it all. The little bastards just break down the morality wall a little bit more. Such a fun ride to be on.
Was it worth the wait. Absolutely.
Would I recommend it to my friends.... 100%.
Will it be something I'd watch again... I'm actually watching it again... Right now... While I do this review.
Mr. Smith, you've done it again.
You have kept my interest and left me utterly satisfied with an hour and a half of pure horrific pleasure.
Not one stitch of disappointment here...
A group of friends, led by angry disruptive Ayla, venture out to the closed down Field of Screams Halloween Haunt in search of a local urban legend. Prompted by one of their teachers, They are asked to make up their own Legend and try to bring it to life to prove how false facts can create a sort of mass hysteria. And eventually. They become real... Like local urban legend, Lockjaw.
First off... These fucking kids
None of them are likable. They all have something that makes them horrible. There's no smiles and laughs while walking down the fucking train tracks in this not so feel good movie. The performances by these kids. Even the youngest one... Who you kind of want to kick in the face... puts in a stellar showing. The lead girl. With her serial killer like lack of emotion and empathy. If there were Oscars for horror. She would most definitely be nominated. Even the one kid who shows some form of common sense. Has not one real redeeming quality. These kids are just plain horrid. You literally wish death upon these teenagers
Second. The originality of the whole thing. I know it will probably garner some comparisons to Psycho Goreman. But... Believe me when i tell you... There is no similarity. These are two completely seperate entities.
The idea of Urban Legends coming true. And not being projected by some killer in a parka. makes me extremely happy. Not a slight against the series of Urban Legend movies... I love them... But...
Third. I love the pace of the film. It keeps going, doesn't let up in the slightest. Just when you think you've seen it all. The little bastards just break down the morality wall a little bit more. Such a fun ride to be on.
Was it worth the wait. Absolutely.
Would I recommend it to my friends.... 100%.
Will it be something I'd watch again... I'm actually watching it again... Right now... While I do this review.
Mr. Smith, you've done it again.
You have kept my interest and left me utterly satisfied with an hour and a half of pure horrific pleasure.
Not one stitch of disappointment here...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 11, 2021
The two Emmas (2 more)
The rest of the ensemble cast
The technical team: cinematography, hair & make-up; costuming
An astonishing attack on the senses as Disney goes to the dark side.
Positives:
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
- The battle of the Emmas! It's really difficult to say who wins, since both Emma Thompson and Emma Stone give such fabulous performances here. You might think that Thompson steals a scene at one minute, only for Stone to come surfing in on a garbage truck and outdo her! I think it would be a surprise if both were not nominated for Actress and Supporting Actress Oscars for this.
- The supporting cast is also very strong. Paul Walter Hauser picks up the 'comedy villain' role as Horace Badun, and is so entertaining I could just about forgive his 'gor-blimey-guvnor' cockney accent: one that gives Dick Van Dyke a run for his money. Joel Fry - most recognisable to me as the useless roadie from "Yesterday" - plays the straight man in the duo, and does it very well. Mark Strong, cast against type as an evil henchman (#humour) is as good as always. And Kirby Howell-Baptiste and John McCrea round off the strong ensemble cast. But a particular shout-out I think should go to young Tipper Seifert-Cleveland who plays the young Estrella: she's way down the cast list, but I thought she gave a knock-out performance to ground the dramatic opening scenes of the movie.
- Technically, the film is marvellous and surely in line for a slew of technical Oscars next awards season. In fact, I think - even at this early point in the year - you would be a VERY brave person to bet against Cruella picking up the awards for Hair and Makeup (Nadia Stacey), Costume (Jenny Beavan and Tom Davies) and Production Design (Fiona Crombie). It's a stunning technical achievement - a real attack on the senses.
- The cinematography (Nicholas Karakatsanis) is also spectacular. A 'single-take' fly-through of the Liberty store from top to bottom is a tour-de-force, worthy of "1917"-style applause.
- And we should also add to this list a truly banging soundtrack from Nicholas Britell. Many of the tracks chosen - although regular visitors to cinema screen - catch the mood of the movie brilliantly and add to what is a joy-ride of a flick.
- The script is deliciously dark in places for a Disney film. Definitely NOT one for young children. Perhaps - given that it went down some of the roads it did, it could have been made EVEN BLACKER in places. (Did we REALLY need to see the Dalmatians again!) But some of the twists are delightful, especially 'mothageddon' which made me howl with laughter (even though I rather saw a variation of it coming).
Negatives:
- At 134 minutes, I felt the movie was a bit too long. There's a point (at about 100 minutes, where Emma Stone does her "I am Cruella" speech) which felt to me like the perfect end to a (first) film. I was delighted, happy and very content with the movie, thank-you very much. But then we dived back into the third reel. And, don't get me wrong, the ending was really entertaining. But, given that I suspect Disney KNEW that this was likely to be a big hit, I think a shorter film teasing for the sequel would have worked better.
Additional Notes:
- It's 12A certificate for a reason. Although a Disney, this is the dark-side of Disney and is not suitable for younger children.
- Yes, this one has a mid-credit scene - and for once its worth staying for: an introduction to two of the stars of the original cartoon that we haven't met yet, and for a rendition of a well-known tune (a TERRIBLE ear-worm that I've been quietly humming to myself ever since!).
Summary Thoughts on "Cruella": The cinema summer's still young, but it's already had some tricks up its sleeve. First "Nobody" came out of nowhere to delight me. And now, what a surprise! "Cruella" is a blisteringly funny, gloriously colourful and hugely entertaining blockbuster.
You'll know I'm not a fan of these Disney live-action re-imaginings of classic cartoons (although of course this one has previously had the Glenn Close treatment in two previous films in 1996 and 2000). But this is an origin story I really thought I didn't want... but now feel that I was wrong.
I've seen it described as "Devil Wears Prada meets Joker". The Prada analogy is well-deserved. But I'm not sure I agree with the Joker analogy. In Joker, our anti-hero was an everyman (albeit a disturbed one) driven to madness and anarchy by others. In Cruella, it's all inbred and that makes it perhaps even more deliciously dark. The fact that Disney released this - forewarned by a distinctly sombre and stormy castle logo at the start - is a minor miracle, and hopefully signs of more spice and adventure to come.
If you haven't caught it yet, it's highly recommended. As well as being in cinemas, its also available to buy on Disney+ streaming.
(Please check out the full graphical review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/11/cruella-an-astonishing-attack-on-the-senses-as-disney-goes-to-the-dark-side/. Thanks).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dirty Grandpa (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Dirty De Niro
It’s hard to imagine an acting career that has continuously impressed as much as that of Robert De Niro. The two-time Academy Award-winner has also racked up an incredible five further nominations at the Oscars, cementing him as a Hollywood great.
However, over the last few years, this acting veteran has spiralled into rather dangerous territory. Taking on thankless role after thankless role with terrible romantic comedies, his filmography makes for grim reading these days.
His latest movie sees him star alongside the hunky Zac Efron in Dirty Grandpa, a gross-out comedy following the pair on a road trip from Atlanta to Florida, but does it do enough to restore some sheen to De Niro’s CV?
De Niro stars as Richard ‘Dick’ Kelly, an army veteran mourning the loss of his late wife. To ease his grief, he and his uptight lawyer grandson Jason (Efron) take a trip together as a way of catching up. Though for Dick, there’s more than scenery on his mind.
I’ll get this off my chest before we go any further. The script is absolutely atrocious and one of the worst I have ever come across in the genre, and Dan Mazer’s inconsistent direction only highlights these major flaws.
Both Efron and De Niro look uncomfortable with the overly offensive dialogue that targets homosexuals and ethnic minorities just to try and raise a laugh. This is comedy at its laziest and Dirty Grandpa is more than happy to admit that to you – it’s definitely not ashamed of what it is.
Nevertheless, it’s such a shame to see a former Oscar winner taking on the role of a borderline perverted grandparent. The constant leering at college girls and the cringe-worthy talk of sex just don’t sit well with those who know of De Niro’s once unrivalled talent and this is why he feels sorely miscast.
Efron too starts off incredibly poorly. As the uptight lawyer, he spouts legalese that you know he doesn’t truly understand, though once he starts to unwind we see him at his best. The actor knows that he works well in films where he can use his cracking smile and body to full effect and it’s certainly out in force here.
Elsewhere, a supporting cast that includes Parks and Recreation’s Aubrey Plaza fares much better with Plaza being the film’s standout character. Her sex-obsessed Lenore is actually very funny indeed and provides Dirty Grandpa with what it sorely needs – genuine comedy.
Unfortunately, despite a few laughs, the film tries too hard with the tired old clichés. From fart jokes to racism and sexism, it’s all there – all the while unaware it’s adding another nail in the coffin of Robert De Niro’s acting career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/05/dire-de-niro-dirty-grandpa-review/
However, over the last few years, this acting veteran has spiralled into rather dangerous territory. Taking on thankless role after thankless role with terrible romantic comedies, his filmography makes for grim reading these days.
His latest movie sees him star alongside the hunky Zac Efron in Dirty Grandpa, a gross-out comedy following the pair on a road trip from Atlanta to Florida, but does it do enough to restore some sheen to De Niro’s CV?
De Niro stars as Richard ‘Dick’ Kelly, an army veteran mourning the loss of his late wife. To ease his grief, he and his uptight lawyer grandson Jason (Efron) take a trip together as a way of catching up. Though for Dick, there’s more than scenery on his mind.
I’ll get this off my chest before we go any further. The script is absolutely atrocious and one of the worst I have ever come across in the genre, and Dan Mazer’s inconsistent direction only highlights these major flaws.
Both Efron and De Niro look uncomfortable with the overly offensive dialogue that targets homosexuals and ethnic minorities just to try and raise a laugh. This is comedy at its laziest and Dirty Grandpa is more than happy to admit that to you – it’s definitely not ashamed of what it is.
Nevertheless, it’s such a shame to see a former Oscar winner taking on the role of a borderline perverted grandparent. The constant leering at college girls and the cringe-worthy talk of sex just don’t sit well with those who know of De Niro’s once unrivalled talent and this is why he feels sorely miscast.
Efron too starts off incredibly poorly. As the uptight lawyer, he spouts legalese that you know he doesn’t truly understand, though once he starts to unwind we see him at his best. The actor knows that he works well in films where he can use his cracking smile and body to full effect and it’s certainly out in force here.
Elsewhere, a supporting cast that includes Parks and Recreation’s Aubrey Plaza fares much better with Plaza being the film’s standout character. Her sex-obsessed Lenore is actually very funny indeed and provides Dirty Grandpa with what it sorely needs – genuine comedy.
Unfortunately, despite a few laughs, the film tries too hard with the tired old clichés. From fart jokes to racism and sexism, it’s all there – all the while unaware it’s adding another nail in the coffin of Robert De Niro’s acting career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/05/dire-de-niro-dirty-grandpa-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
Well Acted
In 2012, the conservative Pope Benedict - citing failing health - made the rare move of stepping down from the Papacy. He was, ultimately, replaced by the more Liberal Pope Francis. THE TWO POPES is a fictional account of a conversation that these two men had prior to Benedict's stepping down.
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you are looking for a hard-hitting expose of the issues the Catholic Church was facing at the time with the conservative Benedict facing off against the Liberal Francis, then you will be disappointed. But...if you are looking for an interesting, gentle acting exercise where 2 strong actors take Center Stage to move from enemies to frenemies to friends, then you will enjoy THE TWO POPES.
The review of this film begins and ends with the performances of the 2 leads - Jonathan Pryce as Pope Francis (Cardinal Bergoglio in the film) and Anthony Hopkins as Pope Benedict - and they are terrific. Pryce was nominated in the Best Actor Oscar category while Hopkins sits in the Best Supporting Actor category (deservedly so - Pryce has much more screen time and focus).
As Francis, Pryce is conflicted by both what is currently happening with the Church and his own demons. His Cardinal Bergoglio is alternately strong and weak - and Pryce plays this well. It is just about the best performance I have ever seen from Pryce on film. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison with the withering, wilted and strong portrayal of Pope Benedict that is put on by Hopkins. This is Sir Anthony's best work in years and shows that this ol' trouper "still has it." As I stated earlier, they are both nominated (deservedly) for Oscars, for it is an actor's movie, but only Hopkins would be a deserving winner (though neither of them will win).
THE TWO POPES is Directed by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles based on a screen play by Anthony McCarten (DARKEST HOUR). McCarten's script is stronger than Meirelles Direction. I felt like I was watching a filmed stage play with both Popes sitting and talking for long stretches of time. Do not be surprised to see a stage version of this film on Broadway sometime soon. It played more like an extended episode of Masterpiece Theater than a Theatrical Film.
At just over 2 hours, this film is just a bit too long, but (of course) both Popes have their "Oscar moment" in the tail end of the movie so that helps it to cross the finish line strong.
If you are looking for strong acting, look no further than THE TWO POPES, you will not be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hillbilly Elegy (2020) in Movies
Apr 22, 2021
General Shoutiness and a glowering Glenn Close
I missed Ron Howard's "Hillbilly Elegy" when it came out at the end of last year, but principally wanted to catch up on it to see Glenn Close's Oscar nominated performance before Sunday's Oscars.
Positives:
- When this film started, I suspected that the Glenn Close nomination might be another 'Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love' - - where her acceptance speech is longer than the time spent on screen! But no. Because of the flashback format deployed in the film, she actually gets a good amount of air time. And it's a really solid and impressive performance.
- The supporting cast is also good. Amy Adams is given a lot to do with a challenging role, and (just about) pulls it off. And young Owen Asztalos as the younger J. D. particularly impressed me.
Negatives:
- Although it's based on J. D. Vance's true life story, I really struggled to get very invested in the story. The choppy nature of the narrative - hopping repeatedly between 'the present' and multiple flashback timelines - really doesn't help with this.
- The whole J. D. / Usha romance element almost felt like it belonged in a different film. In fact, I found it frustrating that I found the elements with J. D.'s struggles at college, with the emerging love and guidance of Usha, as a more compelling narrative than the druggie mother lead story. Perhaps the movie was just trying to be too ambitious?
- Apart from one 'personal decision' scene in a motel bedroom, there's not much of an "up-side" to the story for the viewer to take away. It's not a movie that I found a positive experience.
Viewer Advisory;
If you've had any history of life in a dysfunctional family, there is a lot of shouting, slapping and general tension in this movie which you might find disturbing.
Summary Thoughts:
So, I came to this to see the performance of Glenn Close, and it's very good. I would personally be surprised if she takes the Oscar for this. However, having been nominated eight times before and never won, the 'sympathy vote' may play here.
But one of my bellweathers for a movie is to think whether I'll remember it in six months time. I'm afraid this one is unlikely to pass the test. If you say "Hillbilly Elegy" to me in October, I'll probably recall a whole lot of shouty people and Glenn Close glowering at me from the screen. That's not a wholly great recommendation for a movie. Sorry Mr Howard, but this one's a 'miss' for me.
(For the full graphical review, please see the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/21/hillbilly-elegy-review/ ).
Positives:
- When this film started, I suspected that the Glenn Close nomination might be another 'Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love' - - where her acceptance speech is longer than the time spent on screen! But no. Because of the flashback format deployed in the film, she actually gets a good amount of air time. And it's a really solid and impressive performance.
- The supporting cast is also good. Amy Adams is given a lot to do with a challenging role, and (just about) pulls it off. And young Owen Asztalos as the younger J. D. particularly impressed me.
Negatives:
- Although it's based on J. D. Vance's true life story, I really struggled to get very invested in the story. The choppy nature of the narrative - hopping repeatedly between 'the present' and multiple flashback timelines - really doesn't help with this.
- The whole J. D. / Usha romance element almost felt like it belonged in a different film. In fact, I found it frustrating that I found the elements with J. D.'s struggles at college, with the emerging love and guidance of Usha, as a more compelling narrative than the druggie mother lead story. Perhaps the movie was just trying to be too ambitious?
- Apart from one 'personal decision' scene in a motel bedroom, there's not much of an "up-side" to the story for the viewer to take away. It's not a movie that I found a positive experience.
Viewer Advisory;
If you've had any history of life in a dysfunctional family, there is a lot of shouting, slapping and general tension in this movie which you might find disturbing.
Summary Thoughts:
So, I came to this to see the performance of Glenn Close, and it's very good. I would personally be surprised if she takes the Oscar for this. However, having been nominated eight times before and never won, the 'sympathy vote' may play here.
But one of my bellweathers for a movie is to think whether I'll remember it in six months time. I'm afraid this one is unlikely to pass the test. If you say "Hillbilly Elegy" to me in October, I'll probably recall a whole lot of shouty people and Glenn Close glowering at me from the screen. That's not a wholly great recommendation for a movie. Sorry Mr Howard, but this one's a 'miss' for me.
(For the full graphical review, please see the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/21/hillbilly-elegy-review/ ).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Night House (2020) in Movies
Aug 23, 2021
Rebecca Hall - outstanding (1 more)
Nicely vague script: leaves a lot to interpret
This one really creeped me out
Positives:
- Of the different movie genres, comedy and horror are probably the ones that polarise opinion the most. One person's meat is another's fowl. But I have to say that this movie officially creeped me out. I was extremely tense for just about the whole 107 minute running time. Much of this is down to Rebecca Hall, who is just SUPERB in this. She brilliantly portrays a woman on the edge, her impassive character breaking every so often into an "everything's fine" sarcastic smile. I know that the Academy tend not to nominate actors for Oscars for 'frivolous' films, but this genuinely, to me, felt like an Oscar-nomination-worthy performance.
- I've talked before in my blog about the overuse of 'jump scares' in horror films and the law of diminishing returns. This film doles them out very sparingly indeed. There are two notable ones (one spoiled by the trailer!) but - man - the first of these had me levitating off the seat!
- The script is very vague indeed about where you end up in this movie. (I've tried to do a synopsis of what I *think* happened in a "Sp0iler section" in my blog). The script deliciously muddies the waters between dreams and reality; sanity and madness; sobriety and drunkenness; with the real-life Madelyn (Stacy Martin) bringing you up short at times with an "oh - so that bit must by reality then"!
Negatives:
- The ending. I'm not sure how I wanted it to end. But it felt wholly anti-climactic.
Summary Thoughts on "The Night House": London-born Rebecca Hall seems to have a "leisurely" output as an actress, but she really deserves more prominence in the industry. (If you've not seen it yet, watch her outstanding performance in "Christine" as another proof point). Here she magnificently holds the movie together.
Effective horror films for me are those on the tense psychological side rather than the mindless slasher variety. This point was well made by Tom Shone in his review in "The Sunday Times", describing it as a "middle-aged kind of horror movie!". "The Night House" delivered those mental chills for me in spades. There is actually very little gore in this one. But it certainly had me thinking about it when I woke up in the middle of the night last night. Was that a noise downstairs??
If you like your scary films, then this one is highly recommended.
(For my full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
- Of the different movie genres, comedy and horror are probably the ones that polarise opinion the most. One person's meat is another's fowl. But I have to say that this movie officially creeped me out. I was extremely tense for just about the whole 107 minute running time. Much of this is down to Rebecca Hall, who is just SUPERB in this. She brilliantly portrays a woman on the edge, her impassive character breaking every so often into an "everything's fine" sarcastic smile. I know that the Academy tend not to nominate actors for Oscars for 'frivolous' films, but this genuinely, to me, felt like an Oscar-nomination-worthy performance.
- I've talked before in my blog about the overuse of 'jump scares' in horror films and the law of diminishing returns. This film doles them out very sparingly indeed. There are two notable ones (one spoiled by the trailer!) but - man - the first of these had me levitating off the seat!
- The script is very vague indeed about where you end up in this movie. (I've tried to do a synopsis of what I *think* happened in a "Sp0iler section" in my blog). The script deliciously muddies the waters between dreams and reality; sanity and madness; sobriety and drunkenness; with the real-life Madelyn (Stacy Martin) bringing you up short at times with an "oh - so that bit must by reality then"!
Negatives:
- The ending. I'm not sure how I wanted it to end. But it felt wholly anti-climactic.
Summary Thoughts on "The Night House": London-born Rebecca Hall seems to have a "leisurely" output as an actress, but she really deserves more prominence in the industry. (If you've not seen it yet, watch her outstanding performance in "Christine" as another proof point). Here she magnificently holds the movie together.
Effective horror films for me are those on the tense psychological side rather than the mindless slasher variety. This point was well made by Tom Shone in his review in "The Sunday Times", describing it as a "middle-aged kind of horror movie!". "The Night House" delivered those mental chills for me in spades. There is actually very little gore in this one. But it certainly had me thinking about it when I woke up in the middle of the night last night. Was that a noise downstairs??
If you like your scary films, then this one is highly recommended.
(For my full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Wife (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021 (Updated Sep 28, 2021)
Glenn Close … #robbed.
I missed “The Wife” when it came out in September, but finally caught it a few weeks ago. (Been a busy time at work so have a bit of a backlog of reviews!).
The Plot.
Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) is the doting wife of internationally renowned writer Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce). As we start the film, Joe has just received a call from Stockholm. No, it’s not an “amusing story about a goat” (for any MM2 fans out there). It’s notification that he is to receive the Nobel prize for literature. As Joan listens to the news on the extension, there is something in her eyes that betrays mixed emotions.
They travel to Sweden (on Concorde, obviously) with their son Max (Max Irons) – a writer at the start of his career. Max and Joe have a strained relationship.
Also in Stockholm is Nathanial Bone (Christian Slater) – the bane of Joe’s life, since he seems insistent on writing the biography of the great man. As Nathanial picks through the history of the couple, things start to unravel in unexpected ways.
What a performance!
The heart of this film, and the main reason for watching what is really a bit of a pot-boiler, is the performance by Glenn Close. It’s a remarkable demonstration of the acting craft and 110% Oscar worthy.
Don’t get me wrong…. as I watched the Oscars live in the wee-hours of Monday morning I let out a WHOOP of joy when our own national treasure Olivia Colman picked up the award. But I have to say that I think Glenn Close was rather robbed. Close can act brilliantly without saying a single word. In fact most of her best scenes are reaction shots to what she is listening to.
In comparison I found Jonathan Pryce to be a soupçon over-the-top as the feted writer, and I didn’t find the portrayal of Bone by Slater to be terribly convincing. So it’s a very mixed acting bag in my view.
Utterly gorgeous in a way that only Swedish women can be is Karin Franz Körlof as the personal photographer Linnea. She can also act!
A perfectly pleasant movie
Directed by Swedish director Björn Runge and with a screenplay by Jane Anderson, it’s a perfectly pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. The story is intriguing enough to keep your interest, although it plays its hand so early that the simmering suspense element ebbs out of the film. A final “Sixth Sense” style of reveal might have been much more effective.
But this is above all a film to relish the performance of Close: the facial acting during the speech at the awards ceremony is something that should be studied at acting schools for years to come.
The Plot.
Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) is the doting wife of internationally renowned writer Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce). As we start the film, Joe has just received a call from Stockholm. No, it’s not an “amusing story about a goat” (for any MM2 fans out there). It’s notification that he is to receive the Nobel prize for literature. As Joan listens to the news on the extension, there is something in her eyes that betrays mixed emotions.
They travel to Sweden (on Concorde, obviously) with their son Max (Max Irons) – a writer at the start of his career. Max and Joe have a strained relationship.
Also in Stockholm is Nathanial Bone (Christian Slater) – the bane of Joe’s life, since he seems insistent on writing the biography of the great man. As Nathanial picks through the history of the couple, things start to unravel in unexpected ways.
What a performance!
The heart of this film, and the main reason for watching what is really a bit of a pot-boiler, is the performance by Glenn Close. It’s a remarkable demonstration of the acting craft and 110% Oscar worthy.
Don’t get me wrong…. as I watched the Oscars live in the wee-hours of Monday morning I let out a WHOOP of joy when our own national treasure Olivia Colman picked up the award. But I have to say that I think Glenn Close was rather robbed. Close can act brilliantly without saying a single word. In fact most of her best scenes are reaction shots to what she is listening to.
In comparison I found Jonathan Pryce to be a soupçon over-the-top as the feted writer, and I didn’t find the portrayal of Bone by Slater to be terribly convincing. So it’s a very mixed acting bag in my view.
Utterly gorgeous in a way that only Swedish women can be is Karin Franz Körlof as the personal photographer Linnea. She can also act!
A perfectly pleasant movie
Directed by Swedish director Björn Runge and with a screenplay by Jane Anderson, it’s a perfectly pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. The story is intriguing enough to keep your interest, although it plays its hand so early that the simmering suspense element ebbs out of the film. A final “Sixth Sense” style of reveal might have been much more effective.
But this is above all a film to relish the performance of Close: the facial acting during the speech at the awards ceremony is something that should be studied at acting schools for years to come.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Final Destination 5 (2011) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Did we really need another Final Destination film? After the last, merely average movie, the answer on everyone’s lips was a firm and resounding no. However, a surprising return to form for the franchise has ensured that even this old goat has life in it yet.
Gone are the cheap, cheesy shocks that littered Final Destination 3 and 4. In their place are the genuine thrills and spills from the first two films. The movie returns the guessing game element to its audience and for that I am thoroughly grateful.
Newcomer Steven Quale helms this instalment which combines excellent 3D with fantastic special effects and a dazzling set of opening credits which showcase the deaths from the films that preceded it. I wasn’t expecting much from this film, I have to admit, but the credits really are a highlight as you try and remember which film each death is from.
As with any film in the Final Destination franchise, an epic opening disaster is the norm. Whilst the motorway pileup from Final Destination 2 has been the best up until now, the bridge collapse in this film is utterly mesmerising and edge of your seat thrilling. From the flawless special effects to the scale of the production, it surpasses anything seen before in the series.
The deaths have also returned to form too. Instead of out and out cheese, they’re shocking to the point of jaw-dropping. It’ll have you checking every loose nut and bolt from now on and probably have you resisting that fashionable laser eye surgery too. Thankfully though, away from the deaths, it errs on the side of humorous without delving into slapstick.
Nicholas D’Agosto leads a small cast as they try and find a way to cheat death after surviving that epic bridge disaster. An interesting storyline this time around has the cast told that they are able to cheat death by killing someone else, therefore having their life swapped with yours. The acting from all corners leaves a lot to be desired and the dialogue and performances are unashamedly wooden but this is a small point in a film that really does shock and surprise.
However, perhaps the best part of the film and the reason why it’s so enjoyable is the final twist, a twist that will leave you shouting at the screen in dismay. It’s practically impossible to see it coming until the last 5 minutes and in these last minutes you realise just how clever director Steven Quale has been in creating this film.
It may not be the most original movie to ever grace the big screen and the cast aren’t going to trouble the Oscars but Final Destination 5 returns a lifeless franchise to what it once was, bloody good fun and as such it is by far, the best in the series.
So, the question now is; do we need Final Destination 6?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/09/21/review-final-destination-5-2011/
Gone are the cheap, cheesy shocks that littered Final Destination 3 and 4. In their place are the genuine thrills and spills from the first two films. The movie returns the guessing game element to its audience and for that I am thoroughly grateful.
Newcomer Steven Quale helms this instalment which combines excellent 3D with fantastic special effects and a dazzling set of opening credits which showcase the deaths from the films that preceded it. I wasn’t expecting much from this film, I have to admit, but the credits really are a highlight as you try and remember which film each death is from.
As with any film in the Final Destination franchise, an epic opening disaster is the norm. Whilst the motorway pileup from Final Destination 2 has been the best up until now, the bridge collapse in this film is utterly mesmerising and edge of your seat thrilling. From the flawless special effects to the scale of the production, it surpasses anything seen before in the series.
The deaths have also returned to form too. Instead of out and out cheese, they’re shocking to the point of jaw-dropping. It’ll have you checking every loose nut and bolt from now on and probably have you resisting that fashionable laser eye surgery too. Thankfully though, away from the deaths, it errs on the side of humorous without delving into slapstick.
Nicholas D’Agosto leads a small cast as they try and find a way to cheat death after surviving that epic bridge disaster. An interesting storyline this time around has the cast told that they are able to cheat death by killing someone else, therefore having their life swapped with yours. The acting from all corners leaves a lot to be desired and the dialogue and performances are unashamedly wooden but this is a small point in a film that really does shock and surprise.
However, perhaps the best part of the film and the reason why it’s so enjoyable is the final twist, a twist that will leave you shouting at the screen in dismay. It’s practically impossible to see it coming until the last 5 minutes and in these last minutes you realise just how clever director Steven Quale has been in creating this film.
It may not be the most original movie to ever grace the big screen and the cast aren’t going to trouble the Oscars but Final Destination 5 returns a lifeless franchise to what it once was, bloody good fun and as such it is by far, the best in the series.
So, the question now is; do we need Final Destination 6?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/09/21/review-final-destination-5-2011/