Search
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Year of Living Dangerously (1983) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
A Story That Falls Short
The Year of Living Dangerously follows the story of reporter Guy Hamilton (Mel Gibson) during a tumultuous time of civil unrest in Indonesia.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
I won’t lie, I restarted this movie probably three times before I finally committed. It’s hard for a movie to bounce back for me when it gets off to such a sluggish start. The setup borders on painful in spots and it sets the tone for what is to come.
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
One of the shining moments of the movie as it captures 60’s Indonesia beautifully. I was easily transported into the time period and the culture feeling right at home. I also appreciate how the romance between Hamilton and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver) was captured by director Peter Weir. It felt both endearing and sincere.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 4
The movie was painfully dry. Outside of the romance, it was hard for anything else to really capture my attention. There were times where I thought things would pick up only to be let down again. Unfortunate as I was hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
It’s a struggle trying to remember anything that stood out in the film. While there were one or two things that got my attention, things were pretty drab for the most part. Sitting through this again would almost be like a brand new boring experience.
Pace: 3
Slower than a turtle, there were times where I begged for this movie to end. I kept holding out hope that things would take a turn. Alas…You can’t take too long to get to the point and be disinteresting. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Plot: 7
The story itself wasn’t bad at all, I just wish they could have found a way to make things more interesting. The lack of layers really made things fall short for me. A lot of unrealized potential here just left on the table.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 61
For more reasons than one, I just couldn’t get into The Year of Living Dangerously. “Hate” would be a strong word as there were glimpses of a solid movie…but I can’t say I liked it. Nor can I recommend it. There are a number of better 80’s classics out there.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
I won’t lie, I restarted this movie probably three times before I finally committed. It’s hard for a movie to bounce back for me when it gets off to such a sluggish start. The setup borders on painful in spots and it sets the tone for what is to come.
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
One of the shining moments of the movie as it captures 60’s Indonesia beautifully. I was easily transported into the time period and the culture feeling right at home. I also appreciate how the romance between Hamilton and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver) was captured by director Peter Weir. It felt both endearing and sincere.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 4
The movie was painfully dry. Outside of the romance, it was hard for anything else to really capture my attention. There were times where I thought things would pick up only to be let down again. Unfortunate as I was hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
It’s a struggle trying to remember anything that stood out in the film. While there were one or two things that got my attention, things were pretty drab for the most part. Sitting through this again would almost be like a brand new boring experience.
Pace: 3
Slower than a turtle, there were times where I begged for this movie to end. I kept holding out hope that things would take a turn. Alas…You can’t take too long to get to the point and be disinteresting. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Plot: 7
The story itself wasn’t bad at all, I just wish they could have found a way to make things more interesting. The lack of layers really made things fall short for me. A lot of unrealized potential here just left on the table.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 61
For more reasons than one, I just couldn’t get into The Year of Living Dangerously. “Hate” would be a strong word as there were glimpses of a solid movie…but I can’t say I liked it. Nor can I recommend it. There are a number of better 80’s classics out there.
Jaramba - Stava, räkna och lek
Education and Entertainment
App
Jaramba är Sveriges största app för små barn och samlar allt roligt på ett och samma ställe!...
The daughter (and stepdaughter) of actors, Sally Field earned her first acting role at seventeen and was quickly on television in shows such as "Gidget" and "The Flying Nun." Those roles showcased Sally's youth and smiling personality. But, behind the scenes, Sally had a tumultuous childhood: her parents divorced when she was young, and her relationships with them and her stepfather were not easy. She found happiness, in many ways, as an actress, but also struggled to find roles that challenged her. In this, her first memoir, she tells the story of her childhood and her early years as an actress.
I listened to the majority of this (and then switched over to the book, I'm weird), and I'm not going to lie: this wasn't always a fun listen for me. This book is sort of depressing and stressful a lot of the time. I will be honest that I didn't know a lot about Sally Field going in--I knew of Gidget, her roles with Burt Reynolds, "Forrest Gump," and honestly, most recently, "Brothers & Sisters." I knew one of her sons was gay, and she supported him.
I did not know her mother was an actress. I did not know that a lot of really bad things happened to her. Seriously, this memoir contains a lot of Sally Field telling us all the awful memories of her childhood, and, later, her early acting days. I'm not saying that's bad--it's truly brave and powerful stuff. But, man, as you're in the car driving 2+ hours to work? It's draining. I felt horrible for her, I felt proud that she'd overcome it, and I felt a little exhausted by it all. I also was appalled by how much she had to deal with (alone) and the state of the acting community for women during that time period.
It did, however, seem to make the beginning of the book go by rather slowly. Or maybe that's just the audio format--this was only the second audiobook I've ever listened to and, coincidentally, the second audiobook I found slow. When Field got to the time period where she became a mom, it picked up for me, perhaps because I could relate better to her. I felt an odd kinship--I was headed off, leaving behind my kids for a work project, and many times, so was she. (Alas, I was doing a rather boring job and she was a famous actress, but hey, you try to find parallels where you can, right?)
No matter what, I applaud her for being unafraid to tell the truth about her life, including admitting her own faults. She supplements her memories with her journal entries, newspaper articles, letters, and more. The result is a very detailed and personal account of her life--up until about "Norma Rae." After that, it glosses over most of her career following that film, which is a little sad for anyone who enjoyed all her subsequent films. This memoir is clearly focused more on Field's personal growth versus a celebrity tell-all. And I get that, I do, but you can't help but wish for a few more juicy details.
In the end, this wasn't an easy read/listen, but it was a good one. I learned a great deal about Field's life, and I admire her so much more as a person now. She had to go through a great deal to get the acting career and overall life she desired. If you enjoy memoirs and autobiographies, you will probably like this one, especially if you like them detailed, versus just focused on celebrity fluff and laughs (though Field is very witty). 4 stars.
I listened to the majority of this (and then switched over to the book, I'm weird), and I'm not going to lie: this wasn't always a fun listen for me. This book is sort of depressing and stressful a lot of the time. I will be honest that I didn't know a lot about Sally Field going in--I knew of Gidget, her roles with Burt Reynolds, "Forrest Gump," and honestly, most recently, "Brothers & Sisters." I knew one of her sons was gay, and she supported him.
I did not know her mother was an actress. I did not know that a lot of really bad things happened to her. Seriously, this memoir contains a lot of Sally Field telling us all the awful memories of her childhood, and, later, her early acting days. I'm not saying that's bad--it's truly brave and powerful stuff. But, man, as you're in the car driving 2+ hours to work? It's draining. I felt horrible for her, I felt proud that she'd overcome it, and I felt a little exhausted by it all. I also was appalled by how much she had to deal with (alone) and the state of the acting community for women during that time period.
It did, however, seem to make the beginning of the book go by rather slowly. Or maybe that's just the audio format--this was only the second audiobook I've ever listened to and, coincidentally, the second audiobook I found slow. When Field got to the time period where she became a mom, it picked up for me, perhaps because I could relate better to her. I felt an odd kinship--I was headed off, leaving behind my kids for a work project, and many times, so was she. (Alas, I was doing a rather boring job and she was a famous actress, but hey, you try to find parallels where you can, right?)
No matter what, I applaud her for being unafraid to tell the truth about her life, including admitting her own faults. She supplements her memories with her journal entries, newspaper articles, letters, and more. The result is a very detailed and personal account of her life--up until about "Norma Rae." After that, it glosses over most of her career following that film, which is a little sad for anyone who enjoyed all her subsequent films. This memoir is clearly focused more on Field's personal growth versus a celebrity tell-all. And I get that, I do, but you can't help but wish for a few more juicy details.
In the end, this wasn't an easy read/listen, but it was a good one. I learned a great deal about Field's life, and I admire her so much more as a person now. She had to go through a great deal to get the acting career and overall life she desired. If you enjoy memoirs and autobiographies, you will probably like this one, especially if you like them detailed, versus just focused on celebrity fluff and laughs (though Field is very witty). 4 stars.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Killers of the Flower moon (2023) in Movies
Oct 27, 2023
Best Thing Scorses (and DeNiro) have done in many, many years
The BankofMarquis would highly recommend you see the latest epic (and we do mean EPIC) film from famed Director Martin Scorsese in a movie theater. Not because of the beautiful Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto, not because of the Epic-ness of the tale told and not because movie theaters could use your business (all of which are reasons to see it in the movie theaters). You need to see KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON in a movie theater so that you cannot be distracted by things around you (most, notably your PHONE). One needs to immerse themselves in the experience of this 3 1/2 movie to totally understand and appreciate it.
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Front Runner starts after Gary Hart (Jackman) has missed out on the Vice-President position, four-years later in 1987, Gary is running for the Presidency, he is the clear favourite too, his team which includes Bill Dixon (Simmons) knows it is only a matter of time before he wins, while the opposition team is looking for weakness in his reputation.
Gary’s lead starts taking a hit when an early report of a potential affair emerges and before long every single newspaper in the country is trying to cover the story on different levels, some using it as a gossip column while others just want to question his own integrity. This will see Gary’s hope of becoming President come crashing down around him.
Thoughts on The Front Runner
Characters – These characters are based on real people, which will show certain ones in good and bad lights. Senator Gary Hart is running for Presidency, is has the whole campaign under complete control, which has all but guaranteed he would become the next President of the United States. Gary has the ability to spin any story that is placed on front of him, to show that he could bring America a brighter future. Gary however does have a secret with an affair which the press turn into a big story which sees him needing to try and recover from the spiralling situation he has created with his own wrong doing. Lee Hart is the wife of Gary, she has been part of a previous separation which made her suffer enough, she has however always stood by her man with strict rules for the future. Bill Dixon is the campaign manager for Gary, that wants to keep everything simple only this becomes difficult when the truth starts to come out. The Front Runner struggles with one big problem, we have such a large cast of characters it does make it hard to keep up with the almost nameless characters, we have three or four papers and their staff, the campaign team, the people involved in the potential affair, it just becomes completely keeping up with who is who.
Performances – Hugh Jackman is great to watch in the leading role, if he was given that one scene to try and make his character truly memorable it would have put him into a stronger respected performance for the year. Vera Farmiga does everything asked of her character which she doesn’t do anything wrong with. J.K. Simmons almost feels wasted in his role which should have been larger for what is going on. Most of the performances do seem to struggle for this reason.
Story – The story here follows a presidential candidate whose life becomes filed with speculation after an alleged affair that both sides denied saw him going from a guarantee winner to needing to withdraw, changing the way politics are portrayed in the papers forever. This story does put the spotlight on the moment that saw a change in how politics and journalist operated, the film even points out in the fact that previous Presidents asked for heads to be turned about affairs, but this alleged one saw the country turn on any person that was willing to cheat. The story does show how the three weeks changed the whole race, only it does try to put way too many characters into the film which does make it hard to keep up with who each person is and what side of the story they really are on.
Biopic/History – We follow a 3 week period in Gary Hart’s life, the three weeks that took him from being the next President to the moment he withdrew wanting to keep the false accusations about him out of the papers, this shows how quickly the public can turn on people and the media can make it happen, this plays into the history side of electing a President because we see how minds suddenly changed after how previous ones had acted.
Settings – The film does use the authentic settings, show how the press would hide for a story, while Gary would use the public to put an end to the stories being made up.
Scene of the Movie – Twisting the medias words.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a story which does feel like it should be told to more people, only this version of the story is completely over-saturated be characters making it hard to keep up with.
Overall: Political Thriller that just doesn’t pack the punch.
Gary’s lead starts taking a hit when an early report of a potential affair emerges and before long every single newspaper in the country is trying to cover the story on different levels, some using it as a gossip column while others just want to question his own integrity. This will see Gary’s hope of becoming President come crashing down around him.
Thoughts on The Front Runner
Characters – These characters are based on real people, which will show certain ones in good and bad lights. Senator Gary Hart is running for Presidency, is has the whole campaign under complete control, which has all but guaranteed he would become the next President of the United States. Gary has the ability to spin any story that is placed on front of him, to show that he could bring America a brighter future. Gary however does have a secret with an affair which the press turn into a big story which sees him needing to try and recover from the spiralling situation he has created with his own wrong doing. Lee Hart is the wife of Gary, she has been part of a previous separation which made her suffer enough, she has however always stood by her man with strict rules for the future. Bill Dixon is the campaign manager for Gary, that wants to keep everything simple only this becomes difficult when the truth starts to come out. The Front Runner struggles with one big problem, we have such a large cast of characters it does make it hard to keep up with the almost nameless characters, we have three or four papers and their staff, the campaign team, the people involved in the potential affair, it just becomes completely keeping up with who is who.
Performances – Hugh Jackman is great to watch in the leading role, if he was given that one scene to try and make his character truly memorable it would have put him into a stronger respected performance for the year. Vera Farmiga does everything asked of her character which she doesn’t do anything wrong with. J.K. Simmons almost feels wasted in his role which should have been larger for what is going on. Most of the performances do seem to struggle for this reason.
Story – The story here follows a presidential candidate whose life becomes filed with speculation after an alleged affair that both sides denied saw him going from a guarantee winner to needing to withdraw, changing the way politics are portrayed in the papers forever. This story does put the spotlight on the moment that saw a change in how politics and journalist operated, the film even points out in the fact that previous Presidents asked for heads to be turned about affairs, but this alleged one saw the country turn on any person that was willing to cheat. The story does show how the three weeks changed the whole race, only it does try to put way too many characters into the film which does make it hard to keep up with who each person is and what side of the story they really are on.
Biopic/History – We follow a 3 week period in Gary Hart’s life, the three weeks that took him from being the next President to the moment he withdrew wanting to keep the false accusations about him out of the papers, this shows how quickly the public can turn on people and the media can make it happen, this plays into the history side of electing a President because we see how minds suddenly changed after how previous ones had acted.
Settings – The film does use the authentic settings, show how the press would hide for a story, while Gary would use the public to put an end to the stories being made up.
Scene of the Movie – Twisting the medias words.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Too many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a story which does feel like it should be told to more people, only this version of the story is completely over-saturated be characters making it hard to keep up with.
Overall: Political Thriller that just doesn’t pack the punch.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Duck Soup (1933) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
“You’re a brave man. Go and break through the lines. And remember, while you’re out there risking your life and limb through shot and shell, we’ll be in be in here thinking what a sucker you are” Rufus T. Firefly
And the one liners just keep on coming…
Here we have before you one of the most famous entries form The Marx Brothers as they made their indelible mark on Hollywood(land) and the silver screen back in the 1930’s, moving away from their Vaudeville roots to new level of immortally on celluloid.
The fifth film to credit the “The Marx Brothers”, Duck Soup in on one hand a sharply written satire on the weakness of mob mentality to willingly promote unwelcome change to their society and their willingness to follow just about any lunatic as long as they like what they hear; as well as a straight forward slapstick comedy of the time, in keeping with its music hall roots.
It is the music hall aspect of this classic which can be harder for a modern audience to take to, unless you are already disposed to this sort of rather dated humour. But as a satire, it is brilliant and still very funny over seventy years on.
Groucho Marx steals the show as Rufus T. Firefly as he leads his unwitting and possibly dimwitted fictional country of Fredonia (geddit?) to war and ultimate destruction. He is a character, whilst not in any way taking off Adolf Hitler, who was of course rising to power in Germany at this very moment, was clearly a reflection on this type of reckless and charismatic leader and as the hilarious final act demonstrates, is all too common in history and even in our present.
And the fact that Fredonia is ultimately doomed, was a coincidental foreshadowing of Nazi Germany’s fate a decade later, as well as a clear demonstration of the savvy writing.
Witty, whether it is the physical trademark Marx Brothers comedy or the sharp screenplay by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby, based on the stage version of the same name, this a classic satire; whilst not being as hard hitting a s Chaplin’s works of the period, with The Great Dictator (1940) springing to mind, it still holds up and makes its point without hammering you over the head it.
So, you can just enjoy the show and/or take away the message, it is really up to you.
Here we have before you one of the most famous entries form The Marx Brothers as they made their indelible mark on Hollywood(land) and the silver screen back in the 1930’s, moving away from their Vaudeville roots to new level of immortally on celluloid.
The fifth film to credit the “The Marx Brothers”, Duck Soup in on one hand a sharply written satire on the weakness of mob mentality to willingly promote unwelcome change to their society and their willingness to follow just about any lunatic as long as they like what they hear; as well as a straight forward slapstick comedy of the time, in keeping with its music hall roots.
It is the music hall aspect of this classic which can be harder for a modern audience to take to, unless you are already disposed to this sort of rather dated humour. But as a satire, it is brilliant and still very funny over seventy years on.
Groucho Marx steals the show as Rufus T. Firefly as he leads his unwitting and possibly dimwitted fictional country of Fredonia (geddit?) to war and ultimate destruction. He is a character, whilst not in any way taking off Adolf Hitler, who was of course rising to power in Germany at this very moment, was clearly a reflection on this type of reckless and charismatic leader and as the hilarious final act demonstrates, is all too common in history and even in our present.
And the fact that Fredonia is ultimately doomed, was a coincidental foreshadowing of Nazi Germany’s fate a decade later, as well as a clear demonstration of the savvy writing.
Witty, whether it is the physical trademark Marx Brothers comedy or the sharp screenplay by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby, based on the stage version of the same name, this a classic satire; whilst not being as hard hitting a s Chaplin’s works of the period, with The Great Dictator (1940) springing to mind, it still holds up and makes its point without hammering you over the head it.
So, you can just enjoy the show and/or take away the message, it is really up to you.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
My relationship with Laurel & Hardy is a tentative one. I do enjoy their short films, full of ingenuity and genuinely funny moments. But, they’d be down the list a bit for me on the greatest black and white comedy stars – Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, then the Marx Brothers maybe, then the slapstick duo next, maybe. It’s not that I don’t think they are great! They are, they definitely are. I just can’t sit down and take to much of them at once. Maybe because their schtick is very stagey, vaudevillian even, rather than cinematic. And that is because they were primary stage actors and clowns. Not necessarily in that order.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
iZen Garden for iPad - Tabletop Zen Garden
Lifestyle and Entertainment
App
** Chosen as one of the top 500 apps in the world by The Sunday Times of London and an App Store...
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Harlem Nights (1989) in Movies
Feb 1, 2020
A Movie Packed With Entertainment
Harlem Nights getting a 21% on Rotten Tomatoes really leaves me scratching my head. Apparently I’m not the only one as the Audience Score is an overwhelming 80%. Critics (and I include myself in this) don’t always get it right and this is definitely one of those instances. The Story: Two black clubowners in 1930’s Harlem have to outsmart gangsters and corrupt police officers when they try to muscle in on their business.
Acting: 10
Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor are comedic legends and they work so well together in this movie. Murphy plays Quick, a flashy hot-head who carries scenes with sheer charm. Pryor’s role as Sugar Ray sees him take more of a fatherly approach. His voice of reason provides a sweet balance to all the chaos going on. Outside of these two, the supporting cast is filled with amazing performances from the likes of actors like Redd Foxx and Della Reese.
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes are not only hilarious but get you quickly involved in the story. We get to see how Quick and Sugar Ray meet and the crazy circumstance that brought them together. Great setup that perfectly tees up the rest of the movie.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 7
While I can’t put it in the category of All-Time Great, it’s still damn good. It’s the kind of movie with serious replay value. It gives you something to cheer for and plenty of things to laugh about.
Memorability: 8
One of my favorite all-time scenes for film happens in this movie when Quick faces off against Della Reese’s character Vera in an alley. All hell breaks loose when a big toe gets shot. It’s moments like this that adds a magic to this movie you just can’t get anywhere else. It reminds me why I love movies.
Pace: 10
Plot: 7
The story has some holes and relies on a couple of shortcuts to get through, but nothing too damning to impact the overall solidity of the movie. For the most part it works. I appreciated its originality, specifically with putting black characters in such a prominent position during that time period. Nice touch.
Resolution: 7
Not a perfect wrapping of the story, but feels complete nonetheless. I was definitely satisfied. A little bit more closure and I probably would have scored higher.
Overall: 86
If I’m being honest, I think critics sometimes suffer with trying to fit in. Desperately seeking approval from their peers, they produce like reviews that are not a fair indication of a movie’s actual quality.Damn the critics, Harlem Nights is an awesome movie and, if you haven’t checked it out, give it a shot!
Acting: 10
Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor are comedic legends and they work so well together in this movie. Murphy plays Quick, a flashy hot-head who carries scenes with sheer charm. Pryor’s role as Sugar Ray sees him take more of a fatherly approach. His voice of reason provides a sweet balance to all the chaos going on. Outside of these two, the supporting cast is filled with amazing performances from the likes of actors like Redd Foxx and Della Reese.
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes are not only hilarious but get you quickly involved in the story. We get to see how Quick and Sugar Ray meet and the crazy circumstance that brought them together. Great setup that perfectly tees up the rest of the movie.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 7
While I can’t put it in the category of All-Time Great, it’s still damn good. It’s the kind of movie with serious replay value. It gives you something to cheer for and plenty of things to laugh about.
Memorability: 8
One of my favorite all-time scenes for film happens in this movie when Quick faces off against Della Reese’s character Vera in an alley. All hell breaks loose when a big toe gets shot. It’s moments like this that adds a magic to this movie you just can’t get anywhere else. It reminds me why I love movies.
Pace: 10
Plot: 7
The story has some holes and relies on a couple of shortcuts to get through, but nothing too damning to impact the overall solidity of the movie. For the most part it works. I appreciated its originality, specifically with putting black characters in such a prominent position during that time period. Nice touch.
Resolution: 7
Not a perfect wrapping of the story, but feels complete nonetheless. I was definitely satisfied. A little bit more closure and I probably would have scored higher.
Overall: 86
If I’m being honest, I think critics sometimes suffer with trying to fit in. Desperately seeking approval from their peers, they produce like reviews that are not a fair indication of a movie’s actual quality.Damn the critics, Harlem Nights is an awesome movie and, if you haven’t checked it out, give it a shot!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the 1st film Mac (Seth Rogen) and Kelly (Rose Byrne) move to the suburbs when they welcome an infant daughter into their lives name Stella (Zoey Vargas). All goes well with the couple, until Delta Psi Beta fraternity moves in next door. The fraternity leader Teddy (Zac Efron) aspires to join Delta Psi’s Hall of Fame by throwing a massive end of the year party, which end up shutting down the fraternity once and for all.
In the sequel, a few years after Mac and Kelly, pregnant with their second baby, are preparing to sell their house, when another couple agrees to take their property off their hands with one condition 30 days to inspect the house and make sure that everything is up to snuff. Unfortunately there is some bad news; the new tenants of the house next door are going to be louder than the previous ones.
The freshmen, Beth (Kiersey Clemons), Nora (Beanie Feldstein) and Shelby (Chloe Grace Moretz) tried joining to one of their school sororities, but found out that only the fraternities are allow to throw parties, and when they do the girls are victims of constant harassment, the drinks are spiked and the guys trying to have sex with them every minute even if is consensual or not. So Beth, Nora and Shelby decide to start their own sorority, Kappa Nu, where the girls don’t have to dress to impress, where they embrace self-respect and partying hard as a show of defiance.
The member of Kappa Nu are Mac and Kelly’s new neighbors, who are not very pleased about it, but when Mac ask them to keep quiet during the escrow period, he becomes just another man telling them what to do, so the war begins.
Neighbors 2 is uproariously funny, ridiculous and almost breathtaking dirty providing a successful attempt to have a great sequel. Being able to watch Zac Efron shirtless and wearing short shorts for prolonged periods of time is always a plus. It is hard to believe than nine years ago Seth Rogen was the chubby stoner with a terrible idea for a porn site in Knocked up and now He is the father of the year. Although I think that it is a shame that ,LLCoolJ ,didn’t make it to the final cut as was shown in the trailer, but I have to admit it was a nice touch having Zoey Vargas playing Stella for the second time, she is adorable. I only can say you’ll laugh if you’re young, you’ll laugh if you’re old, there is plenty of jokes and many disgusting and strong visual gags, and I loved it.
In the sequel, a few years after Mac and Kelly, pregnant with their second baby, are preparing to sell their house, when another couple agrees to take their property off their hands with one condition 30 days to inspect the house and make sure that everything is up to snuff. Unfortunately there is some bad news; the new tenants of the house next door are going to be louder than the previous ones.
The freshmen, Beth (Kiersey Clemons), Nora (Beanie Feldstein) and Shelby (Chloe Grace Moretz) tried joining to one of their school sororities, but found out that only the fraternities are allow to throw parties, and when they do the girls are victims of constant harassment, the drinks are spiked and the guys trying to have sex with them every minute even if is consensual or not. So Beth, Nora and Shelby decide to start their own sorority, Kappa Nu, where the girls don’t have to dress to impress, where they embrace self-respect and partying hard as a show of defiance.
The member of Kappa Nu are Mac and Kelly’s new neighbors, who are not very pleased about it, but when Mac ask them to keep quiet during the escrow period, he becomes just another man telling them what to do, so the war begins.
Neighbors 2 is uproariously funny, ridiculous and almost breathtaking dirty providing a successful attempt to have a great sequel. Being able to watch Zac Efron shirtless and wearing short shorts for prolonged periods of time is always a plus. It is hard to believe than nine years ago Seth Rogen was the chubby stoner with a terrible idea for a porn site in Knocked up and now He is the father of the year. Although I think that it is a shame that ,LLCoolJ ,didn’t make it to the final cut as was shown in the trailer, but I have to admit it was a nice touch having Zoey Vargas playing Stella for the second time, she is adorable. I only can say you’ll laugh if you’re young, you’ll laugh if you’re old, there is plenty of jokes and many disgusting and strong visual gags, and I loved it.