Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The One (2001) in Movies
Apr 7, 2018
Just Bad
What if the universe was not just one universe but a multitude of parallel universes? In each universe, you exist living a different life in the universe next door. Oh, and everytime one of you dies the other yous get stronger in every way, shape, and form. What if someone with no relation to astronomy or science figured out this secret and decided to travel to every single parallel universe killing his other replicas until he basically became a god? I'm kind of getting mad just typing it out, actually. But yeah, that's The One alright. Hot mess doesn't even begin to describe it.
Acting: 1
There were honestly times where I didn't know if I was watching an action film or an afterschool special. The lowest score I've ever given Acting before this was an 8 if that gives you any indication on my thoughts of the performances, or lack thereof, that came from The One. The lines were so badly telegraphed you could see them coming from a mile away. Overreactions in abundance. It was painful to watch so I know it had to be painful to film. Actors/actresses, you have one job...Terrible film or not, at least make me believe you.
Beginning: 6
From an action standpoint, not the worst start I've seen. However, I couldn't shake the fact that there was going to be a need for a lot of explaining in the future. I also couldn't shake the fact that that explanation was probably going to be extremely disappointing. While I enjoyed the fact that it came out of the gates swinging, there was a cohesiveness that was missing. Sadly, that carried through for the rest of the film.
Characters: 5
Both the acting and the scripted characters were wildly inconsistent. I was never really intrigued by any of the characters nor carried any desire to want to know anything more about them. Watching the characters move aimlessly through the story was like watching cardboard hold up a wall. Where did the 5 come from? That's simple: Jet Li is a badass. Give me multiple Jet Li's with superhuman abilities and you definitely have my attention.
At one point in the film, Jet Li faces the other Jet Li and goes, "After this, there will only be one." Who the hell wrote that in? Are you kidding me? We know there will only be one, that's the entire point of the movie. Killing me...
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 6
Decent action sequences here. Big "HOWEVER" coming up...wait for it....However, the main problem I couldn't shake was the same problem I had with the film Lucy: If you have god-like abilities, it's never really a fair fight. If it's never really a fair fight, things get boring really fast.
I felt like the girl whose boyfriend bit off more than he could chew in a fight and is now getting manhandled while she's screaming, "Stop hitting him!" It just gets old after awhile. Imagine if Superman's greatest opponent in a film was the National Guard? Definitely skipping that film.
Genre: 6
Not the best martial arts action film I've seen. Also not the worst, far from it in fact. Credit is deserved for at least trying to do something different. The execution may have fallen short, but there are still a handful of moments that I can say I enjoyed.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 10
Plot: 4
If it doesn't look good on paper, it's definitely not going to translate well to the big screen. Not remotely believable. So many holes I don't even know where to start. Again, how does this one man learn that there are other "hims" out there he can kill and get stronger? Not buying it. I'm giving it a 4 because the foundation was there. The follow-through, unfortunately, was not.
Even if the story had been fine, it would have been done in with the endless corny moments that appear out of nowhere. There's this one gas station scene...you know what, not even going to get into it. Let's just say it's bad. Real bad.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 50
Yikes. You know what's really sad? This film actually has flashes of brilliance. I can see the areas where it could have been tweaked to create a solid film. Sadly, that will never happen. Steer clear of this grenade.
Acting: 1
There were honestly times where I didn't know if I was watching an action film or an afterschool special. The lowest score I've ever given Acting before this was an 8 if that gives you any indication on my thoughts of the performances, or lack thereof, that came from The One. The lines were so badly telegraphed you could see them coming from a mile away. Overreactions in abundance. It was painful to watch so I know it had to be painful to film. Actors/actresses, you have one job...Terrible film or not, at least make me believe you.
Beginning: 6
From an action standpoint, not the worst start I've seen. However, I couldn't shake the fact that there was going to be a need for a lot of explaining in the future. I also couldn't shake the fact that that explanation was probably going to be extremely disappointing. While I enjoyed the fact that it came out of the gates swinging, there was a cohesiveness that was missing. Sadly, that carried through for the rest of the film.
Characters: 5
Both the acting and the scripted characters were wildly inconsistent. I was never really intrigued by any of the characters nor carried any desire to want to know anything more about them. Watching the characters move aimlessly through the story was like watching cardboard hold up a wall. Where did the 5 come from? That's simple: Jet Li is a badass. Give me multiple Jet Li's with superhuman abilities and you definitely have my attention.
At one point in the film, Jet Li faces the other Jet Li and goes, "After this, there will only be one." Who the hell wrote that in? Are you kidding me? We know there will only be one, that's the entire point of the movie. Killing me...
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 6
Decent action sequences here. Big "HOWEVER" coming up...wait for it....However, the main problem I couldn't shake was the same problem I had with the film Lucy: If you have god-like abilities, it's never really a fair fight. If it's never really a fair fight, things get boring really fast.
I felt like the girl whose boyfriend bit off more than he could chew in a fight and is now getting manhandled while she's screaming, "Stop hitting him!" It just gets old after awhile. Imagine if Superman's greatest opponent in a film was the National Guard? Definitely skipping that film.
Genre: 6
Not the best martial arts action film I've seen. Also not the worst, far from it in fact. Credit is deserved for at least trying to do something different. The execution may have fallen short, but there are still a handful of moments that I can say I enjoyed.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 10
Plot: 4
If it doesn't look good on paper, it's definitely not going to translate well to the big screen. Not remotely believable. So many holes I don't even know where to start. Again, how does this one man learn that there are other "hims" out there he can kill and get stronger? Not buying it. I'm giving it a 4 because the foundation was there. The follow-through, unfortunately, was not.
Even if the story had been fine, it would have been done in with the endless corny moments that appear out of nowhere. There's this one gas station scene...you know what, not even going to get into it. Let's just say it's bad. Real bad.
Resolution: 2
Overall: 50
Yikes. You know what's really sad? This film actually has flashes of brilliance. I can see the areas where it could have been tweaked to create a solid film. Sadly, that will never happen. Steer clear of this grenade.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Transformers (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
Transformers being made into a live action film sounds like every fan's dream come true on paper, but throw Michael Bay into the equation and you lose a good portion of that audience. Bay is a director who tends to rely solely on action sequences. He's known for creating superb and intense scenes in his films, but they always rely on heavy explosions or pure destruction. That's not to say that's a bad thing, but it's hard to name a memorable scene in a Michael Bay film that doesn't include those elements. Everything else in his films (the story, the dialogue, the initial scenes that bridge the gap between each action sequence, etc) all seem to be lacking that extra spark his action sequences have. So those doubts carried over to Transformers and Bay's version seems to be more enjoyable for people who aren't rabid fans of the franchise.
The film revolves around the Autobots fighting off the Decepticons from gaining possession of the Allspark, which has the power to save them from extinction or grant them ultimate power. Optimus Prime, the leader of the Autobots, is trying to save Cybertron (their home planet) while Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons, wants to conquer the universe and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. In 1935, Megatron had found the Allspark on Earth in the Arctic Ocean, but was eventually frozen in his quest to capture it. Megatron used the last of his energy to embed the location of the Allspark in the glasses of a captain who accidentally found Megatron buried deep beneath the ice. That captain was the great, great grandfather of Sam Witwicky who is now in possession of said glasses. In the present day, Sam's father buys Sam his first car; a yellow Camaro which turns out to be Autobot, Bumblebee. As the Transformers arrive on Earth, their first objectives are to find Sam Witwicky, acquire possession of the glasses, and hopefully attain an advantage over their enemy.
The movie relies solely on giant robots fighting each other to be the selling point of the film, so if you're expecting much else story-wise then you'll probably walk away from the film disappointed. The special effects are top notch as the Transformers themselves look incredibly realistic. Scenes in other films that rely heavily on characters that are purely computer generated have a sense of being unrealistic since it's usually noticeable that the actors on screen are reacting to something that isn't really there. CGI characters don't usually look this good though. Most of the time, when the actors interact with the computer generated characters, those actors also become computer generated. Like when Doctor Octopus carries Mary Jane up a skyscraper after kidnapping her from the coffee shop in Spider-Man 2 is a great example. They're both noticeably computer generated. While in Transformers, the actors either weren't CGI or the effect was achieved to a greater degree because it looked phenomenal and believable the entire time. As believable as transforming robots can be anyway. The fight scenes between the Autobots and the Decepticons are where the movie hooks its audience though. There is so much going on that the movie requires multiple viewings just to see everything that's going on.
While Transformers is an incredibly fun ride, it does have its down side. The humor of the film is often on the cheesy side and not really funny at all ("I NEED A CREDIT CARD," the entire Glen Whitmann character, Jazz's dialogue, "This is easily 100 times cooler than Armageddon," etc). A trait that seems to carry over into Revenge of the Fallen as the same sense of humor is in the trailer footage. Another issue is the action scenes. While they are intriguing, they're also incredibly confusing most of the time. The camera is almost always too close during those sequences and telling the difference between an Autobot and a Decepticon while they're rolling around in the air is near impossible. The camera looks like it's pulled out a bit in Revenge of the Fallen, so hopefully that problem has been addressed and taken care of. Looks like we'll find out June 24th.
Despite hardcore Transformers fans being displeased (to say the least) with the film, it can't be denied that the 2007 film was one of the biggest blockbuster films at the box office that year. Transformers is exciting and action packed from beginning to end. It is basically a two and a half hour adrenaline rush. So, bottom line, see Transformers if you're looking for an action packed adventure that'll make your heart race and put you on the edge of your seat.
The film revolves around the Autobots fighting off the Decepticons from gaining possession of the Allspark, which has the power to save them from extinction or grant them ultimate power. Optimus Prime, the leader of the Autobots, is trying to save Cybertron (their home planet) while Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons, wants to conquer the universe and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. In 1935, Megatron had found the Allspark on Earth in the Arctic Ocean, but was eventually frozen in his quest to capture it. Megatron used the last of his energy to embed the location of the Allspark in the glasses of a captain who accidentally found Megatron buried deep beneath the ice. That captain was the great, great grandfather of Sam Witwicky who is now in possession of said glasses. In the present day, Sam's father buys Sam his first car; a yellow Camaro which turns out to be Autobot, Bumblebee. As the Transformers arrive on Earth, their first objectives are to find Sam Witwicky, acquire possession of the glasses, and hopefully attain an advantage over their enemy.
The movie relies solely on giant robots fighting each other to be the selling point of the film, so if you're expecting much else story-wise then you'll probably walk away from the film disappointed. The special effects are top notch as the Transformers themselves look incredibly realistic. Scenes in other films that rely heavily on characters that are purely computer generated have a sense of being unrealistic since it's usually noticeable that the actors on screen are reacting to something that isn't really there. CGI characters don't usually look this good though. Most of the time, when the actors interact with the computer generated characters, those actors also become computer generated. Like when Doctor Octopus carries Mary Jane up a skyscraper after kidnapping her from the coffee shop in Spider-Man 2 is a great example. They're both noticeably computer generated. While in Transformers, the actors either weren't CGI or the effect was achieved to a greater degree because it looked phenomenal and believable the entire time. As believable as transforming robots can be anyway. The fight scenes between the Autobots and the Decepticons are where the movie hooks its audience though. There is so much going on that the movie requires multiple viewings just to see everything that's going on.
While Transformers is an incredibly fun ride, it does have its down side. The humor of the film is often on the cheesy side and not really funny at all ("I NEED A CREDIT CARD," the entire Glen Whitmann character, Jazz's dialogue, "This is easily 100 times cooler than Armageddon," etc). A trait that seems to carry over into Revenge of the Fallen as the same sense of humor is in the trailer footage. Another issue is the action scenes. While they are intriguing, they're also incredibly confusing most of the time. The camera is almost always too close during those sequences and telling the difference between an Autobot and a Decepticon while they're rolling around in the air is near impossible. The camera looks like it's pulled out a bit in Revenge of the Fallen, so hopefully that problem has been addressed and taken care of. Looks like we'll find out June 24th.
Despite hardcore Transformers fans being displeased (to say the least) with the film, it can't be denied that the 2007 film was one of the biggest blockbuster films at the box office that year. Transformers is exciting and action packed from beginning to end. It is basically a two and a half hour adrenaline rush. So, bottom line, see Transformers if you're looking for an action packed adventure that'll make your heart race and put you on the edge of your seat.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Soup 2 Nuts in Tabletop Games
Oct 29, 2019
I like when I can learn something from a game. Or any experience, really. In the case of Soup 2 Nuts I learned that a proper six-course meal begins with the Soup course and ends with the Nuts course. I didn’t even know nuts was their own course! Now you are interested in what the other courses are, aren’t you? Fine, I will oblige: Soup, Appetizer, Salad, Main Course, Dessert, Nuts. These are the courses, and these are the rounds of play in this party card game of opinions and ridiculousness.
Soup 2 Nuts is a card game where players will be drawing cards from the giant stack, performing or answering questions written thereon and scoring points for what the other players deem “good enough.” The player with the highest score at the end of the six courses is the winner! … if you decide to even keep score.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game. It is not a prototype, so what you see is what you get. At least I think. More on that later. -T
To setup, open the aluminum can that the game comes in, dump out the components, shuffle the cards, and place them in a central stack. You are now ready to play. Yes, that’s it for setup.
So the game is very straightforward. Draw a card, read to yourself the prompt according to which course you are playing at the time (you play consecutively, so everyone will play a card at the Soup level through the Nuts level), and perform the action or answer the prompt question. After you have done this the other players will give you a thumbs up or thumbs down to indicate how well you did or how much they may agree with you. If you have a majority of ups you gain a point. A majority of downs is negative points. Yes, someone actually finished the game with negative points. I will not mention her name. You continue playing in this fashion until everyone has had a chance to complete actions on six cards (or passed if they wish, scoring zero points for the round). Tally up the points and announce the winner!
Components. This is a butt-ton of cards in a can. There is a golf pencil and tiny post-it-notes-style pad of paper. Also there was a hippo figure that came in our can. The hippo has nothing to do with the game (that we have found), and so we just keep it in the can and play around with it while waiting for people to decide what they want to do with their card. The cards are good quality, but the pencil and pad could have just as easily been left out all together. The can. Okay I have mixed feelings about the can the game comes in. On one hand, it is hilarious and appropriate for a game themed around a meal. It’s GREAT quality and comes with a plastic lid for containing the bits once you’ve popped the top. On the other hand, I now have to figure out how I am going to put it on my game shelves. One negative point to House Dunce Cap. (but I really do like the can haha)
So here’s the rub on this one. This is a VERY adult-focused game. It is NSFW and NSFKids. Please do not pull this out when you are playing games on a holiday with your parents and grandparents unless you have an incredibly modern relationship with them. Also, we very much recommend playing with as many people as you can. The more the better. We tried it with three players and it just did not work. We suggest at least five players to really let the game play shine as it should. There are also quite a few prompts that just didn’t apply as we were playing. I would house rule that you can have one re-draw if you would normally pass on a prompt, but you may play it however you’d like.
As this game is seriously a TON of prompts to get the group talking, debating, laughing, and being grossed out, we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a hippo-in-the-can 7 / 18. It is not a horrible game, but it is not one I will be pulling off the shelves terribly often. If you enjoy TMI games and making each other squirm for points, give it a shot.
Soup 2 Nuts is a card game where players will be drawing cards from the giant stack, performing or answering questions written thereon and scoring points for what the other players deem “good enough.” The player with the highest score at the end of the six courses is the winner! … if you decide to even keep score.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game. It is not a prototype, so what you see is what you get. At least I think. More on that later. -T
To setup, open the aluminum can that the game comes in, dump out the components, shuffle the cards, and place them in a central stack. You are now ready to play. Yes, that’s it for setup.
So the game is very straightforward. Draw a card, read to yourself the prompt according to which course you are playing at the time (you play consecutively, so everyone will play a card at the Soup level through the Nuts level), and perform the action or answer the prompt question. After you have done this the other players will give you a thumbs up or thumbs down to indicate how well you did or how much they may agree with you. If you have a majority of ups you gain a point. A majority of downs is negative points. Yes, someone actually finished the game with negative points. I will not mention her name. You continue playing in this fashion until everyone has had a chance to complete actions on six cards (or passed if they wish, scoring zero points for the round). Tally up the points and announce the winner!
Components. This is a butt-ton of cards in a can. There is a golf pencil and tiny post-it-notes-style pad of paper. Also there was a hippo figure that came in our can. The hippo has nothing to do with the game (that we have found), and so we just keep it in the can and play around with it while waiting for people to decide what they want to do with their card. The cards are good quality, but the pencil and pad could have just as easily been left out all together. The can. Okay I have mixed feelings about the can the game comes in. On one hand, it is hilarious and appropriate for a game themed around a meal. It’s GREAT quality and comes with a plastic lid for containing the bits once you’ve popped the top. On the other hand, I now have to figure out how I am going to put it on my game shelves. One negative point to House Dunce Cap. (but I really do like the can haha)
So here’s the rub on this one. This is a VERY adult-focused game. It is NSFW and NSFKids. Please do not pull this out when you are playing games on a holiday with your parents and grandparents unless you have an incredibly modern relationship with them. Also, we very much recommend playing with as many people as you can. The more the better. We tried it with three players and it just did not work. We suggest at least five players to really let the game play shine as it should. There are also quite a few prompts that just didn’t apply as we were playing. I would house rule that you can have one re-draw if you would normally pass on a prompt, but you may play it however you’d like.
As this game is seriously a TON of prompts to get the group talking, debating, laughing, and being grossed out, we at Purple Phoenix Games give this one a hippo-in-the-can 7 / 18. It is not a horrible game, but it is not one I will be pulling off the shelves terribly often. If you enjoy TMI games and making each other squirm for points, give it a shot.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Jan 19, 2020
Well Acted Scenes Do Not A Good Movie Make
Noah Baumbach is one of those filmmakers that is highly regarded in the "Art House" community for his semi-autobiographical humanistic films. These are domestic dramas heavy on dialogue - the type of film that "A-List" Actors swarm to perform in for the acting challenges it brings. His latest, MARRIAGE STORY, is no exception as it follows the dissolution of a marriage and the struggles of the 2 main players involved. The husband and wife are written realistically (according to Baumbach) with moments of pathos and moments of repulsion thrown in at equal measure.
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I had mixed emotions when I first saw the trailer for Pan. The story of Peter Pan was one of my all time favorites growing up. Then Steven Spielberg had to go and get Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman together to bring us Hook, and it solidified the stories of Pan as the best thing since sliced bread for me. So here we have Joe Wright bringing the word put on paper by Jason Fuchs to real life. The story of how Peter came to Neverland; and just how did Captain James T. Hook become so fearful of crocodiles. I was worried, and so I shut it all out. I did not watch any more trailers, clips, or synopsis on the film. But, my curiosity got the best of me, and when we offered the press screening, I jumped at the opportunity to see it. And boy, I am glad I did.
Pan, in case you haven’t figured it out, tells the story of 12-year old orphan Peter (Levi Miller), who is abducted from his orphanage, along with many other little boy orphans, by pirates from Neverland. When they bring Peter to Neverland, he is forced to work in the mines, serving the evil pirate overlord, Black Beard (Hugh Jackman, no seriously. It totally doesn’t even look like him.). It’s not long before some very unusual things start happening to him, and he, along with James T. Hook (Garrett Hedlund), escape the mines to find the natives and Princess Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), who helps Peter discover his destiny.
Loaded with stunning visuals and a great soundtrack (including some very recognizable songs in the form of pirate chants), Pan nails it in all the right ways. The visionaries who brought this world to life are amazing, and the creativity in every scene is astounding. It was especially charming that the people behind the film kept in mind that it is a family film. While there is some violence, it is an action movie after all, they applied some very interesting effects and theories to use in place of the gore and blood. I also enjoyed, as weird as this sounds, the brightness of the whole movie. They didn’t try to make the film a dark tale of gritty origins. The feel of the story has the same notes of brightness that I remember from the Disney film as a kid, to even Hook in my later years.
And the likenesses do not stop there. It was very fun, and a bit nostalgic, to catch the references and clues of what’s to come. You see things that influence the characters to become who we know and love. And true to the rumors/stories I heard of the background of the beloved Peter Pan tale, Captain Hook and Peter began their time together as friends. The film sets out to do what it was meant to do… tell the story of how Peter and Captain Hook became who they were. But, not all is revealed in this film. When the film is over, and you’ll wish it weren’t, our beloved hero and villain have a long way to go still. So look forward to more films to come.
The only gripe I had with this movie was the acting. And just one part in general. I felt most of the cast was excellent. Jackman portrayed a great, and zany by the standards of the Paniverse (hoping to coin a new term here people, #paniverse), pirate… czar?! I know I used overlord, but it’s hard to say what he is other than he is the captain of captains. Mara played Tiger Lily oh so very well, and Miller held his own right up there with the bigger names. But it was Hedlund I had issue with. His portrayal of James Hook was more reminiscent of Jack Nicholson with elongated words, and an almost creepy like vibe. It’s just not how I imagined him to act, and maybe that is just throwing my perception off. Though, my feeling and view of the portrayal was echoed by my guest at the screening, so there may be something to it. Luckily, my negative view of the acting was not enough to pull me out of the experience, and I was still able to enjoy the movie.
Bottom line. Go see this movie. Take your kids, your partners, your parents, your grandparents, your cousin’s, aunt’s son/daughter… oh wait. That’s you. The point is. It’s definitely worth seeing. The 3D effects were nothing ground breaking, but it would still be worth it to see it in 3D. And this will definitely be in my collection on day 1 of home release.
Pan, in case you haven’t figured it out, tells the story of 12-year old orphan Peter (Levi Miller), who is abducted from his orphanage, along with many other little boy orphans, by pirates from Neverland. When they bring Peter to Neverland, he is forced to work in the mines, serving the evil pirate overlord, Black Beard (Hugh Jackman, no seriously. It totally doesn’t even look like him.). It’s not long before some very unusual things start happening to him, and he, along with James T. Hook (Garrett Hedlund), escape the mines to find the natives and Princess Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), who helps Peter discover his destiny.
Loaded with stunning visuals and a great soundtrack (including some very recognizable songs in the form of pirate chants), Pan nails it in all the right ways. The visionaries who brought this world to life are amazing, and the creativity in every scene is astounding. It was especially charming that the people behind the film kept in mind that it is a family film. While there is some violence, it is an action movie after all, they applied some very interesting effects and theories to use in place of the gore and blood. I also enjoyed, as weird as this sounds, the brightness of the whole movie. They didn’t try to make the film a dark tale of gritty origins. The feel of the story has the same notes of brightness that I remember from the Disney film as a kid, to even Hook in my later years.
And the likenesses do not stop there. It was very fun, and a bit nostalgic, to catch the references and clues of what’s to come. You see things that influence the characters to become who we know and love. And true to the rumors/stories I heard of the background of the beloved Peter Pan tale, Captain Hook and Peter began their time together as friends. The film sets out to do what it was meant to do… tell the story of how Peter and Captain Hook became who they were. But, not all is revealed in this film. When the film is over, and you’ll wish it weren’t, our beloved hero and villain have a long way to go still. So look forward to more films to come.
The only gripe I had with this movie was the acting. And just one part in general. I felt most of the cast was excellent. Jackman portrayed a great, and zany by the standards of the Paniverse (hoping to coin a new term here people, #paniverse), pirate… czar?! I know I used overlord, but it’s hard to say what he is other than he is the captain of captains. Mara played Tiger Lily oh so very well, and Miller held his own right up there with the bigger names. But it was Hedlund I had issue with. His portrayal of James Hook was more reminiscent of Jack Nicholson with elongated words, and an almost creepy like vibe. It’s just not how I imagined him to act, and maybe that is just throwing my perception off. Though, my feeling and view of the portrayal was echoed by my guest at the screening, so there may be something to it. Luckily, my negative view of the acting was not enough to pull me out of the experience, and I was still able to enjoy the movie.
Bottom line. Go see this movie. Take your kids, your partners, your parents, your grandparents, your cousin’s, aunt’s son/daughter… oh wait. That’s you. The point is. It’s definitely worth seeing. The 3D effects were nothing ground breaking, but it would still be worth it to see it in 3D. And this will definitely be in my collection on day 1 of home release.
iWedPlanner - The Wedding Planner
Lifestyle and Productivity
App
Planning a wedding can take time. No two weddings should be alike because everyone has a different...
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel in TV
Feb 22, 2021
Scarily glamourises internet sleuthing
Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel is the latest stylised true crime documentary from Netflix, and it’s a pretty scary watch, but not in the way you’d expect from something that has been advertised as a supernatural murder mystery.
The 4 episode documentary series focuses on a notorious hotel in downtown L.A, Hotel Cecil, and the disappearance of a Canadian student, Elisa Lam, who went missing from the hotel in unexplained circumstances and who was later found dead. On paper this has everything a true crime lover wants: CCTV footage of the victim acting strangely, a creepy hotel with a dodgy history and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances, which culminates in Elisa Lam’s decomposing body being found in a water tank on the hotel roof days after her disappearance, the same water that the hotel guests have been drinking all along. It’s a truly fascinating story and if done properly, would have been very interesting. However in the hands of director Joe Berlinger, the disappearance of Elisa Lam has been turned into a dull, drawn out affair that dangerously glamourises baseless conspiracy theories.
One of the two main problems is that this documentary has been drawn out over 4 hour long episodes, when realistically the true story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance could still have been told effectively in an hour, maybe two maximum, without detracting from the facts. And I guess that’s really the problem with The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, it isn’t necessarily all that concerned about the facts but rather just wants to create a film-like entertaining story, with the facts almost an afterthought crammed into the final parts of the last episode. It features lengthy and pointless interviews from other guests and tourists to try and give us a feel of what life at the Cecil was like, and these are entirely unnecessary, as some short exposition from the hotel manager or officers involved would’ve sufficed. Every part of this case is stretched so thinly that you almost lose track after having to weed out the truth and facts amongst all the irrelevant interviews and chatter. It isn’t helped by the narration of some of Elisa’s Tumblr posts, which comes across as cheesy and irritating rather than emotional and meaningful like it was probably intended.
What is most irrelevant and dangerous about this documentary, and the second main problem, is the focus on internet sleuths. These are mostly YouTubers who have spent hours dissecting every aspect of the case and have put forward many outrageous theories, all of which are completely laughable. But instead of mocking these idiots, this documentary glamourises them and their theories, and has dedicated more of it’s runtime to them than it has to any of the real life detectives and investigators involved. Watching these people wheel out one ridiculous theory after another had me wanting to throw my remote at the screen to make it stop. The theories ranged from the questionably plausible (foul player or murder) to the downright ludicrous - someone copying the film Dark Water, possible links to the Lam-Elisa TB test and a vast cover up jointly orchestrated by the police, hotel management and coroners staff are the ones that made me laugh and cringe the most.
All jokes aside, this focus on internet sleuths is extremely damaging and dangerous and this is illustrated by the awful accusations they made about Pablo Vergara aka Morbid, who’s only crime was to make music that wouldn’t be considered mainstream. If this documentary had focused on slamming these people and highlighting the dangers of them getting involved, then it would’ve redeemed itself. But it doesn’t, it gives them centre stage and debunking their theories is almost an afterthought. They aren’t even condemned for their treatment of Pablo despite the obviously long lasting effects on his mental health. These people are crazy and this only serves to highlight the huge problem with internet, video streaming sites and social media – how Joe public can ever think they know better than qualified pathologists and investigators is beyond me. And how this documentary can indulge and glamourise these people is even worse. From working a day job in the emergency services, I know how damaging this sort of interference and public perception can be.
The story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance at the Hotel Cecil is undoubtedly an interesting one. However in Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, the real story has been mauled and disrespected by the focus and respect given to the internet sleuths and their absurd theories. I feel like I’m being generous giving it a 3, it made me so angry.
The 4 episode documentary series focuses on a notorious hotel in downtown L.A, Hotel Cecil, and the disappearance of a Canadian student, Elisa Lam, who went missing from the hotel in unexplained circumstances and who was later found dead. On paper this has everything a true crime lover wants: CCTV footage of the victim acting strangely, a creepy hotel with a dodgy history and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances, which culminates in Elisa Lam’s decomposing body being found in a water tank on the hotel roof days after her disappearance, the same water that the hotel guests have been drinking all along. It’s a truly fascinating story and if done properly, would have been very interesting. However in the hands of director Joe Berlinger, the disappearance of Elisa Lam has been turned into a dull, drawn out affair that dangerously glamourises baseless conspiracy theories.
One of the two main problems is that this documentary has been drawn out over 4 hour long episodes, when realistically the true story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance could still have been told effectively in an hour, maybe two maximum, without detracting from the facts. And I guess that’s really the problem with The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, it isn’t necessarily all that concerned about the facts but rather just wants to create a film-like entertaining story, with the facts almost an afterthought crammed into the final parts of the last episode. It features lengthy and pointless interviews from other guests and tourists to try and give us a feel of what life at the Cecil was like, and these are entirely unnecessary, as some short exposition from the hotel manager or officers involved would’ve sufficed. Every part of this case is stretched so thinly that you almost lose track after having to weed out the truth and facts amongst all the irrelevant interviews and chatter. It isn’t helped by the narration of some of Elisa’s Tumblr posts, which comes across as cheesy and irritating rather than emotional and meaningful like it was probably intended.
What is most irrelevant and dangerous about this documentary, and the second main problem, is the focus on internet sleuths. These are mostly YouTubers who have spent hours dissecting every aspect of the case and have put forward many outrageous theories, all of which are completely laughable. But instead of mocking these idiots, this documentary glamourises them and their theories, and has dedicated more of it’s runtime to them than it has to any of the real life detectives and investigators involved. Watching these people wheel out one ridiculous theory after another had me wanting to throw my remote at the screen to make it stop. The theories ranged from the questionably plausible (foul player or murder) to the downright ludicrous - someone copying the film Dark Water, possible links to the Lam-Elisa TB test and a vast cover up jointly orchestrated by the police, hotel management and coroners staff are the ones that made me laugh and cringe the most.
All jokes aside, this focus on internet sleuths is extremely damaging and dangerous and this is illustrated by the awful accusations they made about Pablo Vergara aka Morbid, who’s only crime was to make music that wouldn’t be considered mainstream. If this documentary had focused on slamming these people and highlighting the dangers of them getting involved, then it would’ve redeemed itself. But it doesn’t, it gives them centre stage and debunking their theories is almost an afterthought. They aren’t even condemned for their treatment of Pablo despite the obviously long lasting effects on his mental health. These people are crazy and this only serves to highlight the huge problem with internet, video streaming sites and social media – how Joe public can ever think they know better than qualified pathologists and investigators is beyond me. And how this documentary can indulge and glamourise these people is even worse. From working a day job in the emergency services, I know how damaging this sort of interference and public perception can be.
The story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance at the Hotel Cecil is undoubtedly an interesting one. However in Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, the real story has been mauled and disrespected by the focus and respect given to the internet sleuths and their absurd theories. I feel like I’m being generous giving it a 3, it made me so angry.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
A Comedy Classic
My daughter was flipping channels the other day and ran across the great 1984 Supernatural comedy GHOSTBUSTERS and stopped to watch for awhile. As happens with her generation, she eventually got more interested in her phone and friends and wandered away. Me? I was drawn back into this film so much so that I went downstairs, grabbed the DVD (yes, kids, I still own DVDs) and popped the film into my Home Theater System to give it a proper viewing.
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 23, 2020
'Tis the season for Christmas cliche and Lost At Christmas certainly fits the bill... but stay tuned for a "pleasant" surprise?
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html