Search
Ameeka (131 KP) rated Life (2017) in Movies
Jul 15, 2017
Visually impressive (2 more)
Fast paced
Good cast
A flawed but enjoyable space movie
While the movie was acted well and the depiction of alien life form was interesting, the plot was quite bare. The characters didn't have enough development and had no depth regarding their relationships to each other. I liked this sci-fi thriller, though our astronauts seemed to lack some common sense and weren't as believable. The alien life form was original in design, but felt unrealistic in the power and intelligence gained in such a short period of time. The movie didn't do anything new and creative, but it was a fun film. However, the ending was predictable and kind of disappointing.
Kurt Kren: Structural Films
Nicky Hamlyn, Simon Payne and A.L. Rees
Book
Kurt Kren was a vital figure in Austrian avant-garde cinema of the postwar period. His structural...
Jeremiah Zagar recommended Kes (1969) in Movies (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fame (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
I love musicals so whenever the big guys at the studios decide to remake a classic like “Fame”(1982), I get, well, nervous. How could there be a remake of a film that is so well associated with the 1980s without mocking current audience’s film going standards? Would a new “Fame” be possible without the time period that created it in the first place?
“Fame” follows the year-by-year story of a group of kids who apply to and later attend the New York Academy of Performing Arts. The story follows their growth as performers and as people in the never forgiving streets of New York City. The film has the expected music, dancing, and moral tales about the harsh realities of people in search of that ever-elusive “Fame”.
Littered in guest stars ranging from “Frasier’s” Kelsey Grammer to “Will and Grace’s” Megan Mullally, “Fame” seemed less like the remake of a musical and more like a star studded Ellen show.
Still, there are some exceptional performances from less seasoned stars like Anna Maria Perez de Tagle who plays young aspiring actress Joy and Natuari Naughton as Denise a classical pianist who dreams of singing.
While the film is good, it lacks the heart of a truly engrossing musical. The acting is decent and the choreography is excellent but this modernized version of “Fame” complete with Barenaked Ladies song jokes is no “Chicago”. Moreover, the new version of “Fame” varies significantly from the classic, with hip-hop tracks and a rhythm heavy version of the classic theme song. For many the biggest downside to this musical is sure to be the less than engrossing musical numbers.
Like a darker “High School Musical” for a slightly older audience, “Fame” is a decent film worth a watch, but it will not have you singing a medley in your living room.
“Fame” follows the year-by-year story of a group of kids who apply to and later attend the New York Academy of Performing Arts. The story follows their growth as performers and as people in the never forgiving streets of New York City. The film has the expected music, dancing, and moral tales about the harsh realities of people in search of that ever-elusive “Fame”.
Littered in guest stars ranging from “Frasier’s” Kelsey Grammer to “Will and Grace’s” Megan Mullally, “Fame” seemed less like the remake of a musical and more like a star studded Ellen show.
Still, there are some exceptional performances from less seasoned stars like Anna Maria Perez de Tagle who plays young aspiring actress Joy and Natuari Naughton as Denise a classical pianist who dreams of singing.
While the film is good, it lacks the heart of a truly engrossing musical. The acting is decent and the choreography is excellent but this modernized version of “Fame” complete with Barenaked Ladies song jokes is no “Chicago”. Moreover, the new version of “Fame” varies significantly from the classic, with hip-hop tracks and a rhythm heavy version of the classic theme song. For many the biggest downside to this musical is sure to be the less than engrossing musical numbers.
Like a darker “High School Musical” for a slightly older audience, “Fame” is a decent film worth a watch, but it will not have you singing a medley in your living room.
Radio Times
Entertainment and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Radio Times magazine – the UK’s favourite guide to TV, film and radio listings is now on...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Steve Jobs (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Steve Jobs is written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by Danny Boyle, stars Micheal Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, and Michael Stuhlbarg.
Now that those formalities are out of the way I will just come out and say it. Steve Jobs is the best dramatic bio-pic I have seen. In fact, it is the best movie I have seen this year. Acted fantastically to the point of realism, the film takes the typical three act story arc and shows us the life of Steve Jobs at three periods of his life right before a product launch where we see Jobs as both innovator and villain alike. Each period consist of the 30-45 minutes of visually stimulating and aggressive cinematography leading up to each product launch and how the major people in Job’s life come in and out of those moments. These moments reveal that seemingly simple interactions with Jobs lead to a constant chess match of words and minds to maintain the reality distortion field of a seemingly great man but seemingly not a very good person. Clearly the film takes some Hollywood liberties, but with the screenplay based off the authorized biography of the same name by Walter Isaacson, the film Steve Jobs is probably the most realistic portrayal we may see of the man himself.
That portrayal is delivered splendidly by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender’s performance though each phase of the film is scary. That is to say he plays the egotistical narcissist to perfection. We get real moments of a cold and calculating manipulative intelligent person with quiet moments of compassion here or there. During arguments, Fassbender knows how to delivers bombs out of moments where you would not expect them and at points those arguments feel like high speed action scenes in an otherwise action less film. It is quite remarkable to witness.
Seth Rogen (uncredited) delivers the best dramatic performance of his career as Steve Wozniak. Michael Stuhlbarg likewise delivers a solid performance that stands in this film. While Jeff Daniels, coming off a great performance in the recently successful film The Martian, delivers an outstanding nuanced performance here across from Fassbender. When the two of them are on screen together it is as if they are speaking high prose to each other, albeit at times screaming. I would not be surprised if Daniels is nomination on his work for this film.
Finally we come to Kate Winslet who plays marketing executive Joanna Hoffman. To me she delivered the most fantastic performance in this film. Perhaps because she was the likable better half to Fassbender but more importantly we see this woman who is the only one to stand up to and in a sense understand Steve Jobs’s reality distortion field and work in and out of it as she desperately tries to hold everything together. We she her grow as someone who clearly loves and admires this man however recognizes his faults and is willing to call him out on them. Winslet reminds us yet again why she is one of the best actress in Hollywood and I predict she will be taking home a little gold statue to go with her performance in this film.
If you are still on the fence about watching this film, let me push you off it. Watch it. That may not mean in theaters, which is perhaps my only small complaint about this film. This is the type of film that would be great if it was released same day on digital distribution so you could watch it a few times from home over a few days while you think about it. But at some point you owe it to yourself to be amazed by the fantastic performances and cinematography of this film. While it may not be something you have to see on the big screen, it is absolutely worth the full price of admission. Do not miss it.
Now that those formalities are out of the way I will just come out and say it. Steve Jobs is the best dramatic bio-pic I have seen. In fact, it is the best movie I have seen this year. Acted fantastically to the point of realism, the film takes the typical three act story arc and shows us the life of Steve Jobs at three periods of his life right before a product launch where we see Jobs as both innovator and villain alike. Each period consist of the 30-45 minutes of visually stimulating and aggressive cinematography leading up to each product launch and how the major people in Job’s life come in and out of those moments. These moments reveal that seemingly simple interactions with Jobs lead to a constant chess match of words and minds to maintain the reality distortion field of a seemingly great man but seemingly not a very good person. Clearly the film takes some Hollywood liberties, but with the screenplay based off the authorized biography of the same name by Walter Isaacson, the film Steve Jobs is probably the most realistic portrayal we may see of the man himself.
That portrayal is delivered splendidly by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender’s performance though each phase of the film is scary. That is to say he plays the egotistical narcissist to perfection. We get real moments of a cold and calculating manipulative intelligent person with quiet moments of compassion here or there. During arguments, Fassbender knows how to delivers bombs out of moments where you would not expect them and at points those arguments feel like high speed action scenes in an otherwise action less film. It is quite remarkable to witness.
Seth Rogen (uncredited) delivers the best dramatic performance of his career as Steve Wozniak. Michael Stuhlbarg likewise delivers a solid performance that stands in this film. While Jeff Daniels, coming off a great performance in the recently successful film The Martian, delivers an outstanding nuanced performance here across from Fassbender. When the two of them are on screen together it is as if they are speaking high prose to each other, albeit at times screaming. I would not be surprised if Daniels is nomination on his work for this film.
Finally we come to Kate Winslet who plays marketing executive Joanna Hoffman. To me she delivered the most fantastic performance in this film. Perhaps because she was the likable better half to Fassbender but more importantly we see this woman who is the only one to stand up to and in a sense understand Steve Jobs’s reality distortion field and work in and out of it as she desperately tries to hold everything together. We she her grow as someone who clearly loves and admires this man however recognizes his faults and is willing to call him out on them. Winslet reminds us yet again why she is one of the best actress in Hollywood and I predict she will be taking home a little gold statue to go with her performance in this film.
If you are still on the fence about watching this film, let me push you off it. Watch it. That may not mean in theaters, which is perhaps my only small complaint about this film. This is the type of film that would be great if it was released same day on digital distribution so you could watch it a few times from home over a few days while you think about it. But at some point you owe it to yourself to be amazed by the fantastic performances and cinematography of this film. While it may not be something you have to see on the big screen, it is absolutely worth the full price of admission. Do not miss it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated See how they run (2022) in Movies
Dec 8, 2022
Despite a miscast Sam Rockwell - it works well...enough
The British Comedy/Murder Mystery SEE HOW THEY RUN came and went in movie theaters (at least in the U.S.) pretty quickly last fall and, consequently, most folks missed that this was even a thing.
The good news is that it is now streaming on multiple streaming services so as people gather for the Holidays there is a fun, family friendly (but good for adults) film that young and old alike could gather around the TV to watch together.
Written by Mark Chappell and Directed by Tom George (both of whom who have quite a few BBC TV Series under their belts, but it looks like this is the Major Motion Picture debut for them both), SEE HOW THEY RUN is a comedic look at the British Murder Mystery with a frumpy detective, a victim who “deserved it” and a plethora of potential suspects who are all brought into a room by the Detective on a “dark and stormy” night to reveal “whodunnit”.
Normally, with these types of films, it comes down to the casting and while there are some very good - and fun - actors in many of the roles, one of the roles is terribly miscast and that brings down the quality of this film quite a bit.
So, let’s start with what works - the central murder mystery is clever…enough…(for this sort of thing) and is wonderfully constructed around the London Stage debut of the long-running Agatha Christie murder mystery play THE MOUSETRAP in the 1950’s and, thus, this film is a period piece and that atmosphere adds - in a positive way - to the look and feel of this movie.
Saoirse Ronan, as always, is very good as the young Policewoman who is brought in to aide the main detective and proves out to be quite the Detective herself. She really holds this film together tightly in the middle. Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson, David Oyelowo and Harris Dickinson all bring something to the film in their characters (and suspects) that add color and life to the central mystery.
Unfortunately, the usually good Sam Rockwell is miscast as the lead sleuth on this case. His frumpy, disheveled Detective was reminiscent of Columbo and just didn’t fit in this British Murder Mystery. While this performance is not a distraction to this film, it doesn’t elevate or lift this movie either, and - in a murder mystery - the detective solving the mystery is a major cog in the movie machine and this cog just isn’t that interesting.
Rockwell is not helped by a green Director and Writer who are looking to make the leap from television to film and this film feels more like a made for TV film, than a major motion picture.
Which is why this film is a good one to catch on one of the streaming services it is currently on. It is a fun enough film that will entertain young and old alike over the Holidays.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The good news is that it is now streaming on multiple streaming services so as people gather for the Holidays there is a fun, family friendly (but good for adults) film that young and old alike could gather around the TV to watch together.
Written by Mark Chappell and Directed by Tom George (both of whom who have quite a few BBC TV Series under their belts, but it looks like this is the Major Motion Picture debut for them both), SEE HOW THEY RUN is a comedic look at the British Murder Mystery with a frumpy detective, a victim who “deserved it” and a plethora of potential suspects who are all brought into a room by the Detective on a “dark and stormy” night to reveal “whodunnit”.
Normally, with these types of films, it comes down to the casting and while there are some very good - and fun - actors in many of the roles, one of the roles is terribly miscast and that brings down the quality of this film quite a bit.
So, let’s start with what works - the central murder mystery is clever…enough…(for this sort of thing) and is wonderfully constructed around the London Stage debut of the long-running Agatha Christie murder mystery play THE MOUSETRAP in the 1950’s and, thus, this film is a period piece and that atmosphere adds - in a positive way - to the look and feel of this movie.
Saoirse Ronan, as always, is very good as the young Policewoman who is brought in to aide the main detective and proves out to be quite the Detective herself. She really holds this film together tightly in the middle. Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson, David Oyelowo and Harris Dickinson all bring something to the film in their characters (and suspects) that add color and life to the central mystery.
Unfortunately, the usually good Sam Rockwell is miscast as the lead sleuth on this case. His frumpy, disheveled Detective was reminiscent of Columbo and just didn’t fit in this British Murder Mystery. While this performance is not a distraction to this film, it doesn’t elevate or lift this movie either, and - in a murder mystery - the detective solving the mystery is a major cog in the movie machine and this cog just isn’t that interesting.
Rockwell is not helped by a green Director and Writer who are looking to make the leap from television to film and this film feels more like a made for TV film, than a major motion picture.
Which is why this film is a good one to catch on one of the streaming services it is currently on. It is a fun enough film that will entertain young and old alike over the Holidays.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Rosemary's Baby (1968) in Movies
Jan 13, 2019
Good...Not Great
Rosemary’s Baby takes you down a rabbit hole and you have no idea what’s waiting for you at the other end. It drove me mad at times as I tried to figure out just what exactly was going on. The story follows a couple and the strange happenings that ensure when they move into a new apartment complex.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
I’m watching this movie as I write this as I typically try and do when I write reviews. The beginning is intriguing because it’s chocked full of foreshadowing. Hints are dropped here and there and you recognize almost instantly that something is off. Great job here of being subtle without being overbearing.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film succeeds with a visual jarring aspect where you never really gain your footing. You spend most of the film trying to figure out up from down and that’s in large part due to the fact that nothing really seems out of sorts…except for a few things here and there. Director Roman Polanski is like a cat owner with a laser pointer directing your attention in the right place for a bit then redirecting. Everything is under the surface waiting to boil over.
Conflict: 8
As the film progresses and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) descends into madness, you are hoping she can unravel the mystery of what exactly is happening. The conflict comes in the tension of the movements, the things moving under the surface that you know are there. Every new occurrence brings you closer to the truth and makes things more tense.
Genre: 4
This was probably a solid pass for the 1960’s, but it’s honestly pretty tame for today’s standards. I might catch some heat for not respecting the time period it was filmed in, but if we are identifying this as a horror film, then it pales in comparison to some of the horror that has kept me up at night. Also, when I compare it to a film like The Birds from the same period, it comes up short for me.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 7
Things move quickly enough, especially after the famous “dream sequence” that occurs. The pace is driven by the mystery of all the craziness unfolding. You are looking for answers along with Rosemary. A handful of scenes could have been shortened, but things never really drag on for the most part.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 4
Probably my biggest issue with the film. I won’t ruin it, but after everything that transpired, I was looking for a bit more hope for Rosemary. A few tweaks here and there may have altered my opinion of the entire film as a whole.
Overall: 74
Great cinematic storytelling isn’t quite enough to elevate Rosemary’s Baby to a classic in my opinion. Intriguing but not earth-shattering. Worth a one-time watch.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
I’m watching this movie as I write this as I typically try and do when I write reviews. The beginning is intriguing because it’s chocked full of foreshadowing. Hints are dropped here and there and you recognize almost instantly that something is off. Great job here of being subtle without being overbearing.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film succeeds with a visual jarring aspect where you never really gain your footing. You spend most of the film trying to figure out up from down and that’s in large part due to the fact that nothing really seems out of sorts…except for a few things here and there. Director Roman Polanski is like a cat owner with a laser pointer directing your attention in the right place for a bit then redirecting. Everything is under the surface waiting to boil over.
Conflict: 8
As the film progresses and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) descends into madness, you are hoping she can unravel the mystery of what exactly is happening. The conflict comes in the tension of the movements, the things moving under the surface that you know are there. Every new occurrence brings you closer to the truth and makes things more tense.
Genre: 4
This was probably a solid pass for the 1960’s, but it’s honestly pretty tame for today’s standards. I might catch some heat for not respecting the time period it was filmed in, but if we are identifying this as a horror film, then it pales in comparison to some of the horror that has kept me up at night. Also, when I compare it to a film like The Birds from the same period, it comes up short for me.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 7
Things move quickly enough, especially after the famous “dream sequence” that occurs. The pace is driven by the mystery of all the craziness unfolding. You are looking for answers along with Rosemary. A handful of scenes could have been shortened, but things never really drag on for the most part.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 4
Probably my biggest issue with the film. I won’t ruin it, but after everything that transpired, I was looking for a bit more hope for Rosemary. A few tweaks here and there may have altered my opinion of the entire film as a whole.
Overall: 74
Great cinematic storytelling isn’t quite enough to elevate Rosemary’s Baby to a classic in my opinion. Intriguing but not earth-shattering. Worth a one-time watch.
The Men with the Movie Camera: The Poetics of Visual Style in Soviet Avant-Garde Cinema of the 1920s
4.0
Rate It
Book
Unlike previous studies of the Soviet avant-garde during the silent era, which have regarded the...
Andy K (10823 KP) rated 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) in Movies
Apr 29, 2019
One of the first Disney films to be shot in Cinema Scope
I swear Kirk Douglas has the best chin in film I have ever seen.
Another Disney classic I am ashamed I had not seen until today. What a grand epic undersea adventure! Kirk Douglas, Peter Lorre and James Mason as Captain Nemo (my dog really liked the seal, Esmeralda as well).
After some mysterious encounters at sea results in several vessels going down, some survivors of one of the blasts find their way aboard the Nautilus and meet the nefarious captain. After discovering the captain's mission our heroes try and escape and end up sort of joining the crew to bide their time until another opportunity arises.
What about the giant squid?
For the time period, this film looked amazing and the art direction and special effects both won Academy Awards for that year. The design of the Nautilus was also very interesting and it photographed well underwater.
I thoroughly enjoyed embarking on this aquatic journey and had to hold my breath until it was over!
Another Disney classic I am ashamed I had not seen until today. What a grand epic undersea adventure! Kirk Douglas, Peter Lorre and James Mason as Captain Nemo (my dog really liked the seal, Esmeralda as well).
After some mysterious encounters at sea results in several vessels going down, some survivors of one of the blasts find their way aboard the Nautilus and meet the nefarious captain. After discovering the captain's mission our heroes try and escape and end up sort of joining the crew to bide their time until another opportunity arises.
What about the giant squid?
For the time period, this film looked amazing and the art direction and special effects both won Academy Awards for that year. The design of the Nautilus was also very interesting and it photographed well underwater.
I thoroughly enjoyed embarking on this aquatic journey and had to hold my breath until it was over!