Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Anchorman - The Legend Of Ron Burgundy (2004) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
How in the world do you review a film like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy? The film is meant to be as ridiculous as possible with outrageous performances and a paper thin storyline; half of its charm is its overuse of improvisation. You either found its absurd nature hilarious and consider it one of the funniest films ever (and completely ignore the horrid sequel) or hate it for being a nonsensical comedy filled with a cast of immature people who can’t hold a straight face for a single take. It’s honestly difficult to argue either perspective, but the 20-year-old version of this critic who saw this film and adored it would drop dead if he found out that it doesn’t hold up as well nearly 15 years later.
It’s 1974 and on the local San Diego news station KVWN channel 4 newscaster Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is king since channel 4 is always number one in the ratings. His news team consists of sports newscaster Champ Kind (David Koechner), investigative news reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). Up until this point, only men were allowed to read the news but a new female co-anchor named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is hired by channel 4 and has bigger plans. Veronica is ambitious, has a ton of experience, and envisions herself as one day becoming a lead network anchor. Tensions rise and feuds flare up, but times are changing and it’s something everyone, including Ron Burgundy, is going to have to deal with.
Anchorman is a tricky comedy because it throws all of its success into this random formula. There is a plot, but it takes a backseat to the memorable and hysterical one-liners from the film. These one-liners are phrases that you’ll be saying for years to come as a few will likely become household favorites if you or your family has any sort of taste whatsoever. With the absolute blessing of owning so many cats, a common phrase from Anchorman that gets repeated around here on a regular basis is, “You will eat that cat poop!” With a comedy this spontaneous, it’s difficult to comment on aspects such as the story since it shouldn’t be taken as seriously as a film where the story actually matters. Anchorman isn’t trying to win any awards. This is a film that is only trying to make its audience laugh and if it does that then it has to be successful in some sort of capacity. The cast absolutely embodies these characters to a fairly flawless extent. Being so absorbed in these roles makes the absurdity more believable and slightly easier to swallow.
Before Will Ferrell became unbearable, the holy trinity of Will Ferrell comedies were Step Brothers, Anchorman, and Talladega Nights; in that order (unless his cameo in Wedding Crashers counts). This was the early and late 2000s before Farrell’s on-screen antics had grown stale. Most of Farrell’s films follow the same generic formula; a nonexistent plot followed by a series of aimless one-liners and spitfire jokes that come out of nowhere. Ferrell’s career is well past the redundant stage as his more serious roles show more promise these days than his exasperating comedies. That formula was still working with Anchorman and it seems to have worked for many other who saw it as the film garnered a cult status over time.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy isn’t going to be for everyone and it’s totally understandable if you or someone you know downright hates the film. It is absolutely moronic in its execution, but for those who love it that is why it’s as funny as it is. There isn’t a riveting story, impressive character development, or a steady buildup towards anything worthwhile (unless Jack Black dropkicking a fake dog off of an overpass counts as a proper climax). Anchorman has the attention span of a Family Guy cutaway gag. If you enjoy Family Guy, then Anchorman is probably one of your favorite movies.
This is like getting together with a bunch of friends and laughing at stupid stuff because you’re loaded on sugar, but Anchorman stretches out that feeling for an hour and a half; it’s a 90-minute sugar rush with no breaks. It’s like snorting Pixie Stix and laughing like an idiot for an hour straight or chugging a two-liter Coke and inhaling seven packets of Pop Rocks and laughing at your stomach not exploding. You don’t watch Anchorman to ponder your life choices or be amazed at technical achievements in filmmaking. This is a paper thin comedy that only wants to make you laugh and forget about how hard it is to make adult decisions in the overly intimidating modern world for a short hour and a half time period. If Anchorman can accomplish all of that and you quote it like a giggling idiot, then the two of us have something in common and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy should be considered as a masterwork in hilarious idiocy.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is currently available to rent via Amazon Video, Youtube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and through iTunes for $3.99. The Unrated DVD is available as an add-on item through Amazon for $3.99, multi-format Blu-ray for $6.98, and the unrated Rich Mahogany Blu-ray for $5.99. It’s also available on DVD ($2.45) and Blu-ray ($3.65) through eBay with free shipping.
It’s 1974 and on the local San Diego news station KVWN channel 4 newscaster Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is king since channel 4 is always number one in the ratings. His news team consists of sports newscaster Champ Kind (David Koechner), investigative news reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). Up until this point, only men were allowed to read the news but a new female co-anchor named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is hired by channel 4 and has bigger plans. Veronica is ambitious, has a ton of experience, and envisions herself as one day becoming a lead network anchor. Tensions rise and feuds flare up, but times are changing and it’s something everyone, including Ron Burgundy, is going to have to deal with.
Anchorman is a tricky comedy because it throws all of its success into this random formula. There is a plot, but it takes a backseat to the memorable and hysterical one-liners from the film. These one-liners are phrases that you’ll be saying for years to come as a few will likely become household favorites if you or your family has any sort of taste whatsoever. With the absolute blessing of owning so many cats, a common phrase from Anchorman that gets repeated around here on a regular basis is, “You will eat that cat poop!” With a comedy this spontaneous, it’s difficult to comment on aspects such as the story since it shouldn’t be taken as seriously as a film where the story actually matters. Anchorman isn’t trying to win any awards. This is a film that is only trying to make its audience laugh and if it does that then it has to be successful in some sort of capacity. The cast absolutely embodies these characters to a fairly flawless extent. Being so absorbed in these roles makes the absurdity more believable and slightly easier to swallow.
Before Will Ferrell became unbearable, the holy trinity of Will Ferrell comedies were Step Brothers, Anchorman, and Talladega Nights; in that order (unless his cameo in Wedding Crashers counts). This was the early and late 2000s before Farrell’s on-screen antics had grown stale. Most of Farrell’s films follow the same generic formula; a nonexistent plot followed by a series of aimless one-liners and spitfire jokes that come out of nowhere. Ferrell’s career is well past the redundant stage as his more serious roles show more promise these days than his exasperating comedies. That formula was still working with Anchorman and it seems to have worked for many other who saw it as the film garnered a cult status over time.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy isn’t going to be for everyone and it’s totally understandable if you or someone you know downright hates the film. It is absolutely moronic in its execution, but for those who love it that is why it’s as funny as it is. There isn’t a riveting story, impressive character development, or a steady buildup towards anything worthwhile (unless Jack Black dropkicking a fake dog off of an overpass counts as a proper climax). Anchorman has the attention span of a Family Guy cutaway gag. If you enjoy Family Guy, then Anchorman is probably one of your favorite movies.
This is like getting together with a bunch of friends and laughing at stupid stuff because you’re loaded on sugar, but Anchorman stretches out that feeling for an hour and a half; it’s a 90-minute sugar rush with no breaks. It’s like snorting Pixie Stix and laughing like an idiot for an hour straight or chugging a two-liter Coke and inhaling seven packets of Pop Rocks and laughing at your stomach not exploding. You don’t watch Anchorman to ponder your life choices or be amazed at technical achievements in filmmaking. This is a paper thin comedy that only wants to make you laugh and forget about how hard it is to make adult decisions in the overly intimidating modern world for a short hour and a half time period. If Anchorman can accomplish all of that and you quote it like a giggling idiot, then the two of us have something in common and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy should be considered as a masterwork in hilarious idiocy.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is currently available to rent via Amazon Video, Youtube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and through iTunes for $3.99. The Unrated DVD is available as an add-on item through Amazon for $3.99, multi-format Blu-ray for $6.98, and the unrated Rich Mahogany Blu-ray for $5.99. It’s also available on DVD ($2.45) and Blu-ray ($3.65) through eBay with free shipping.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sleep by day…”.
Ben Affleck’s new movie could best be described as “sprawling”. In both directing and writing the screenplay (based on a novel by Dennis Lehane), Affleck has aimed for a “Godfather” style gangster epic and missed: not missed by a country mile, but missed nonetheless.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Blood on Satan's Claw (1971) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018 (Updated Feb 9, 2018)
What's In A Name?
One of the big three British folk-horror movies (along with Witchfinder General and The Wicker Man) and the only one to go for an explicitly supernatural storyline: in 18th century England, a ploughman unearths a deformed skull, which mysteriously disappears soon after. Insanity, mutation and violence begin to spread amongst the young people of the area, forcing the local judge to take extreme measures in the cause of virtue.
On one level this does sound like the broadest kind of exploitative schlock, and it's true that the monster suit at the end is utterly crapulous, but this does not take into account the disturbingly dreamy atmosphere conjured up by director Haggard and Marc Wilkinson's score. There's a touch of the genuine gothic in the way something ancient and disturbing erupts into a quietly bucolic world.
Plus, there is a hard edge of gleeful nastiness to this film which is wholly lacking from the movies being made by Tigon's better-known rivals at Hammer and Amicus during the same period. There's a sense in which most Hammer movies feel like costume dramas with a little blood included as a contractual obligation, but Blood on Satan's Claw goes all-out to mess the viewer up - it's not especially frightening as such, but it's a very unsettling, creepy movie that's a worthy successor to an ancient English tradition of supernatural horror stories.
On one level this does sound like the broadest kind of exploitative schlock, and it's true that the monster suit at the end is utterly crapulous, but this does not take into account the disturbingly dreamy atmosphere conjured up by director Haggard and Marc Wilkinson's score. There's a touch of the genuine gothic in the way something ancient and disturbing erupts into a quietly bucolic world.
Plus, there is a hard edge of gleeful nastiness to this film which is wholly lacking from the movies being made by Tigon's better-known rivals at Hammer and Amicus during the same period. There's a sense in which most Hammer movies feel like costume dramas with a little blood included as a contractual obligation, but Blood on Satan's Claw goes all-out to mess the viewer up - it's not especially frightening as such, but it's a very unsettling, creepy movie that's a worthy successor to an ancient English tradition of supernatural horror stories.
Dana (24 KP) rated The Year's Work at the Zombie Research Center in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I had to read this book for my zombie film course at UCI and I can honestly say it was incredibly interesting. I loved seeing all these ideas about how deep the zombie narrative is because it made me think in ways I would not have otherwise.
There are essays on race, post feminism, the health care system, and so many more.
I loved how it related to both zombie films from the 1930s as well as the more prevalent films known about today. These essays took into consideration the history of zombies and the actual cultural significance of these monsters instead of ignoring it. Many of these essays made references to the Haitian culture surrounding zombies which was awesome.
I enjoyed seeing the different cultural and gender perspectives on all of these issues. Instead of only seeing the viewpoint of some middle aged white male, we get to see women and men of color all engaging in this scholarship and being able to keep it entertaining enough to keep the readers engaged.
If you like reading essays on popular culture connecting to both social and political issues of the time period, then definitely pick this book up, it is worth the read. Honestly, even if you don't like reading those types of books, pick it up because it could give you a different perspective on something you feel like you already know.
There are essays on race, post feminism, the health care system, and so many more.
I loved how it related to both zombie films from the 1930s as well as the more prevalent films known about today. These essays took into consideration the history of zombies and the actual cultural significance of these monsters instead of ignoring it. Many of these essays made references to the Haitian culture surrounding zombies which was awesome.
I enjoyed seeing the different cultural and gender perspectives on all of these issues. Instead of only seeing the viewpoint of some middle aged white male, we get to see women and men of color all engaging in this scholarship and being able to keep it entertaining enough to keep the readers engaged.
If you like reading essays on popular culture connecting to both social and political issues of the time period, then definitely pick this book up, it is worth the read. Honestly, even if you don't like reading those types of books, pick it up because it could give you a different perspective on something you feel like you already know.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Interview with the Vampire (1994) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
How can a movie that does practically everything wrong still be so thoroughly enchanting? A fundamentally baffling, scalding hot trainwreck of epic proportions that hasn't held up to the passage of time really at all - a miscalculated weirdo relic of pop culture history. I think a lot of this film's appeal has to do with the fact that it's complete lightning in a bottle - for better or for worse we will never see another movie like this again: mopey, homoerotic rococo vampires stumble around through a flounderingly-paced pre-𝘛𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 template for lectures on moral dilemmas and a gallery of some of the most lush period visuals of the 90s (from the sweltering plantations of the 1700s south to the decadence of gothic European high-life, it's all orgasmically displayed). Also this is maybe the best use of "Sympathy For The Devil" in a film, even if it is an inferior cover. The fact that Brad Pitt wanted to die the entire time while filming for this woefully underconstructed character actually makes it the only thing that works with it, considering his only defining feature is... that he wants to die. A totally birdbrained brothel of jagged writing and wicked scenery-chewing from a glorious cast (you know you're in for a treat when Christian Slater gives the most restrained performance lol), actually pretty great even though it disembowels a lot of the original text's depth. Full-tilt camp.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Hoo boy. If you are a fan of “whodunit” movies, you are in for a real treat. Rian Johnson directs Knives Out, a film that that brings a great modern twist to the whodunit genre with an amazing all star cast.
Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is an acclaimed mystery murder novelist who has committed suicide on the night of his birthday party. At least it seems so at first. A mysterious entity has hired the last of the southern gentlemen detectives, Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig), to aid Lieutenant Elliot (LaKeith Stanfield) and Trooper Wagner (Noah Segan) in their investigation into what appeared to be a suicide. But soon, the stories of the party-goers starts to crumble, and you see there is something more afoot. Someone killed Mr. Thrombey, but who could it be? The list of suspects is long, and all are close to the deceased in their own way: his daughter, Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis); her husband, Richard Drysdale (Don Johnson); or their son, Ransom Drysdale (Chris Evans)? Could it possibly be his son, Walt Thrombey (Michael Shannon); his wife Donna (Riki Lindhome); or their son Jacob (Jaeden Martell). Maybe it was Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette), his widowed daughter-in-law; or her daughter Meg (Katherine Langford). Or it could be Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), Mr. Thrombey’s nurse. It’s a large list of suspects who attended the party that night, and it could be any of them.
I am a huge fan of this genre of movie, and I will say that Knives Out, while predictable at some points, did have me guessing, and second-guessing, all the way to the very end. I can’t really give you a lot more without spoiling some major plot points, but the film is outstanding. It was a little slow to start, but I believe there was a purpose behind this. Each actor playing a part that is not their typical role (for the most part) ended up being the real selling point. They all did fantastic, even though it did take a little getting used to seeing James Bond with a southern accent, and Captain America as a bona fide jackass.
The movie gave us a perfect blend of humor, mystery, and even a little action in order to give us what could be a modern masterpiece in the genre. Flay me all you want if you disagree, but it’s been a while since a really good whodunit has been put out that wasn’t a period piece. There were some flaws, but the movie made you connect to these characters, as zany as they seemed. Definitely a good film to check out on a date night.
Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is an acclaimed mystery murder novelist who has committed suicide on the night of his birthday party. At least it seems so at first. A mysterious entity has hired the last of the southern gentlemen detectives, Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig), to aid Lieutenant Elliot (LaKeith Stanfield) and Trooper Wagner (Noah Segan) in their investigation into what appeared to be a suicide. But soon, the stories of the party-goers starts to crumble, and you see there is something more afoot. Someone killed Mr. Thrombey, but who could it be? The list of suspects is long, and all are close to the deceased in their own way: his daughter, Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis); her husband, Richard Drysdale (Don Johnson); or their son, Ransom Drysdale (Chris Evans)? Could it possibly be his son, Walt Thrombey (Michael Shannon); his wife Donna (Riki Lindhome); or their son Jacob (Jaeden Martell). Maybe it was Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette), his widowed daughter-in-law; or her daughter Meg (Katherine Langford). Or it could be Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), Mr. Thrombey’s nurse. It’s a large list of suspects who attended the party that night, and it could be any of them.
I am a huge fan of this genre of movie, and I will say that Knives Out, while predictable at some points, did have me guessing, and second-guessing, all the way to the very end. I can’t really give you a lot more without spoiling some major plot points, but the film is outstanding. It was a little slow to start, but I believe there was a purpose behind this. Each actor playing a part that is not their typical role (for the most part) ended up being the real selling point. They all did fantastic, even though it did take a little getting used to seeing James Bond with a southern accent, and Captain America as a bona fide jackass.
The movie gave us a perfect blend of humor, mystery, and even a little action in order to give us what could be a modern masterpiece in the genre. Flay me all you want if you disagree, but it’s been a while since a really good whodunit has been put out that wasn’t a period piece. There were some flaws, but the movie made you connect to these characters, as zany as they seemed. Definitely a good film to check out on a date night.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 18, 2020 (Updated Jan 18, 2020)
Coffee and Compliments
Little Women feels like a breath of fresh air in a time chock full of superhero movies and action sequels. Simply overflowing with such kindness, warmth and an enormous sense of love and heart little women is pure escapism into a tale so beautify simple yet so sophisticated and intricate that its simply a pure delight to behold for any age to enjoy. Being unfamiliar with the source material myself I was concerned that I wouldnt enjoy this movie but as the film began I found myself so absorbed by its beauty and overwhelmed with its ability to transport me back and embed me into a period in time like it was but a memory of my own. Production design is staggering and constantly breathtaking from clothing, set design, lighting and props everything just screams quality and class making homes feel lived in/cosy, parties feel exciting/grand and the outdoor scenes to feel magical and fable esque. Whats truly stunning here however is how the feeling of belonging has been masterfully created and as we spend time with this family the bond and love depicted here is so flawless, real and full of love its hard to remember these are actresses we are watching and not real people going about thier lives. Perfomances are splendind but its Florence Pugh that really shows she deserves her nomene for this for sure with a performance so believable full of innocence, emotion and energy that its trully entrancing to watch. With accurate depictions of love, courtship, acceptance, passion, drive, perseverance, innocence, maturity, family life, bonding and grief we almost see these girls fight thier own personal battles along side the real war going on as they struggle to make something of themselves and live freely in a world where men are considered to have all the dominance and rights. Although taking place in the past it all just feels so very current and timeless not affraid to tackle a variety of important and complex themes/issues while exploring the very characteristics and traits that make us human. A wonderful delight and a simply magnifict and heart warming piece of film making history. Such a joyous experiance for anyone and everyone alike.
Johnny Messias (25 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Al Pacino as Hoffa (6 more)
Joe Pesci is wonderful
De Niro anchors the film
Scorsese on top form
Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing
Steve Zaillian’s script
De Niro and Pacino together
Marty’s marvellous Oldfellas
The Irishman – BFI London Film Festival Review Oct 13th 2019.
An extended cinematic love letter to some of the finest actors of the last 40 years, and to a bygone era of US history, The Irishman is reassuringly brilliant. Like the best Scorsese joints, its business is power brokers, mobsters and underground schemers, but often as a comedy of manners. De Niro anchors the story, yes as mob enforcer but also as a kind of killer Forrest Gump; “connected” to some key milestones in 1960s America; Bay of Pigs, Jimmy Hoffa’s teamsters, RFK, then later the shadow of Nixon. Famously, we see De Niro’s titular character Frank in his 20s, 30s, 40s, right up until the old age home. Scorsese uses computerised de-aging technology to achieve the effect make-up artists might have parlayed. It works well—mostly. What grips you and takes you in is the bravura acting. Al Pacino gives a wonderful performance as Jimmy Hoffa. He goes full “Pacino” with speeches and grandstanding but it is the lilt of this voice (all sing song) in quiet moments that makes this the best we’ve seen from Al in many a year. Joe Pesci as well. He’s kind of the centre of this world, as the mobster who links up De Niro to Pacino’s Hoffa. Pesci speaks quietly and carefully; you sense how much power he has without any of the violence that was trademark in his famous Casino and Goodfellas roles. Over nearly 3.5 hours (never seems long) what you get is a beautifully written, shot, edited and performed drama about loyalty, friendship and a creeping sense of regret. All with the backdrop of this fascinating period: JFK, Union movements, Cuba, Fidel Castro. It lingers long in the memory and it’s one to cherish, since we surely won’t see its like again.
An extended cinematic love letter to some of the finest actors of the last 40 years, and to a bygone era of US history, The Irishman is reassuringly brilliant. Like the best Scorsese joints, its business is power brokers, mobsters and underground schemers, but often as a comedy of manners. De Niro anchors the story, yes as mob enforcer but also as a kind of killer Forrest Gump; “connected” to some key milestones in 1960s America; Bay of Pigs, Jimmy Hoffa’s teamsters, RFK, then later the shadow of Nixon. Famously, we see De Niro’s titular character Frank in his 20s, 30s, 40s, right up until the old age home. Scorsese uses computerised de-aging technology to achieve the effect make-up artists might have parlayed. It works well—mostly. What grips you and takes you in is the bravura acting. Al Pacino gives a wonderful performance as Jimmy Hoffa. He goes full “Pacino” with speeches and grandstanding but it is the lilt of this voice (all sing song) in quiet moments that makes this the best we’ve seen from Al in many a year. Joe Pesci as well. He’s kind of the centre of this world, as the mobster who links up De Niro to Pacino’s Hoffa. Pesci speaks quietly and carefully; you sense how much power he has without any of the violence that was trademark in his famous Casino and Goodfellas roles. Over nearly 3.5 hours (never seems long) what you get is a beautifully written, shot, edited and performed drama about loyalty, friendship and a creeping sense of regret. All with the backdrop of this fascinating period: JFK, Union movements, Cuba, Fidel Castro. It lingers long in the memory and it’s one to cherish, since we surely won’t see its like again.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Censor (2021) in Movies
Sep 3, 2021
Niamh Algar is fabulous (1 more)
Novel story and great direction
A genuinely original story (at last!)
Positives:
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
