Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Orphan (2009) in Movies
Oct 2, 2020
Sweet Little Innocent Girl
Orphan- is a really good psychological horror film about a orphan who seems sweet and innocent at first but it turns out shes not. Plus the twist is excellent. The cast is really good expectally Isabelle Fuhrman she was fantasic and excellent.
The Plot: Devastated by the loss of their unborn baby, Kate (Vera Farmiga) and John (Peter Sarsgaard) decide to adopt a child. At the orphanage, both feel drawn to a little girl (Isabelle Fuhrman) named Esther, and soon the couple take their new daughter home. But when a dangerous series of events unfolds, Kate begins to suspect that there is something evil lurking behind the child's angelic exterior.
Its a excellent movie.
The Plot: Devastated by the loss of their unborn baby, Kate (Vera Farmiga) and John (Peter Sarsgaard) decide to adopt a child. At the orphanage, both feel drawn to a little girl (Isabelle Fuhrman) named Esther, and soon the couple take their new daughter home. But when a dangerous series of events unfolds, Kate begins to suspect that there is something evil lurking behind the child's angelic exterior.
Its a excellent movie.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Lie (2020) in Movies
Nov 18, 2020
To sum up The Lie in one word - frustrating.
This recent thriller from Blumhouse, based on 2015 German film Wir Monster, has a lot of good ingredients, and some decent performances but there's just so much that bogs it down.
First off, the lead cast here are great. Peter Sarsgaard and Mireille Enos in particular are heart wrenchingly believable as two parents desperately trying to protect their teen daughter (Joey King) who has confessed to impulsively murdering one of her friends. It's a slow burn of a plot, and Sarsgaard and Enos do a hell of a lot to make it watchable.
Joey King's character is stupidly unlikable however. I got the feeling that we as the audience were supposed to be on her side, hoping that she wouldn't get caught - like the filmmakers we're going for a Psycho vibe or something, but her character is so obnoxious and spoilt, that all I wanted was for her to go to prison. It's a big hiccup considering the narrative centres around her so severely.
Then there's the twist - no spoilers here, but fuck me, it's stupid. All good thrillers need a good twist to round things off, but the one we're subjected to here requires a huge suspension of disbelief on the viewers part. It asks too much, and ruins what is otherwise a fairly tense and minimalist thriller.
The snowy setting adds some beauty to the films aesthetic, but it's not enough to detract from everything that makes The Lie more unenjoyable than it should be.
This recent thriller from Blumhouse, based on 2015 German film Wir Monster, has a lot of good ingredients, and some decent performances but there's just so much that bogs it down.
First off, the lead cast here are great. Peter Sarsgaard and Mireille Enos in particular are heart wrenchingly believable as two parents desperately trying to protect their teen daughter (Joey King) who has confessed to impulsively murdering one of her friends. It's a slow burn of a plot, and Sarsgaard and Enos do a hell of a lot to make it watchable.
Joey King's character is stupidly unlikable however. I got the feeling that we as the audience were supposed to be on her side, hoping that she wouldn't get caught - like the filmmakers we're going for a Psycho vibe or something, but her character is so obnoxious and spoilt, that all I wanted was for her to go to prison. It's a big hiccup considering the narrative centres around her so severely.
Then there's the twist - no spoilers here, but fuck me, it's stupid. All good thrillers need a good twist to round things off, but the one we're subjected to here requires a huge suspension of disbelief on the viewers part. It asks too much, and ruins what is otherwise a fairly tense and minimalist thriller.
The snowy setting adds some beauty to the films aesthetic, but it's not enough to detract from everything that makes The Lie more unenjoyable than it should be.
JT (287 KP) rated Robot & Frank (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Frank (Frank Langella) is slowing drifting into dementia, although his stiff upper lip and stubbornness refuse him to believe that there is anything wrong. His children fight to offer help despite an ongoing sense of resentment that they have to. When his son Hunter presents Frank with a robot butler designed to look after him he finds another more profitable use for it.
The portrayal of old age in any film can be depressing. We’re all going to end up that way at some point in our lives whether we like it or not. The only control we have is do we go quietly or kicking and screaming. The robot (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard) is not given a name but his calming presence and dry underlying humour make him a perfect compliment for Frank’s brash and rather direct old timer.
Frank’s hidden past was as a jewel thief, spending most of his early life inside made it clear that he was not a good father to either of his children, and he’s been divorced from his wife for some time. It’s a beautifully written script set near enough in the future that it still is in keeping with present day surroundings – uniquely different mobile phones and voice activated Skype chat seem to be the more futuristic of the technologies, robots aside.
As their relationship develops the bond between them becomes closer. It feels very much like a real life Wall-E, Frank relaxes to become dependant on the Robot. It’s a solid film with great central performances with controlled and light hearted direction. The plot is wayward at times but it holds well for the duration.
The portrayal of old age in any film can be depressing. We’re all going to end up that way at some point in our lives whether we like it or not. The only control we have is do we go quietly or kicking and screaming. The robot (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard) is not given a name but his calming presence and dry underlying humour make him a perfect compliment for Frank’s brash and rather direct old timer.
Frank’s hidden past was as a jewel thief, spending most of his early life inside made it clear that he was not a good father to either of his children, and he’s been divorced from his wife for some time. It’s a beautifully written script set near enough in the future that it still is in keeping with present day surroundings – uniquely different mobile phones and voice activated Skype chat seem to be the more futuristic of the technologies, robots aside.
As their relationship develops the bond between them becomes closer. It feels very much like a real life Wall-E, Frank relaxes to become dependant on the Robot. It’s a solid film with great central performances with controlled and light hearted direction. The plot is wayward at times but it holds well for the duration.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Jarhead (2005) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: Jarhead starts as we meet Anthony Swofford (Gyllenhaal) who joined the marines, it isn’t long before he gets taken by Staff Sgt Sykes (Foxx) to the US Marine Sniper division going through the training regime meeting his spotter Alan Troy (Sarsgaard).
When war breaks out the marines are set to the middle east, where they must adapt to the desert condition before going into to conflict, this will test their psychical shape and their mental health as the waiting is just part of the sniper’s game.
Thoughts on Jarhead
Characters – Anthony Swofford who wrote the book the film is based on, we see how he joined the military out of college and struggled at first through the training regime. Anthony soon discovered he was ready for this life as a sniper, but his time in the gulf sees him start to lose his mind. Alan Troy becomes the best friend of Anthony’s and his spotter, he seems to be the most level-headed marine in the unit. Staff Sgt Sykes is the one running the sniper unit, he demands respect and isn’t afraid to put the marines in their place.
Performances – Jake Gyllenhaal is fantastic in the leading role, he shows everyone how he can play the calm soldier, the crazed soldier and the broken man through the scenes of the film which only increase what he is dealing with. Peter Sarsgaard give us a brilliant supporting performance which shows how the fear can be kept inside a calm outer layer. Jamie Foxx brings us the energy of a career military man.
Story – The story follows the experiences of one soldier that joins the marines before being put in the sniper division when war breaks out, he must adapt to life in the desert during the waiting game before the conflict. This story does show us just how difficult adapting to war can be for the soldiers and just how the war can be fought without needing to fire a weapon. It shows us just how the mindset can change over a set amount of time which will see the soldiers make decisions they wouldn’t normally consider making. This does focus on the idea that the main soldier Anthony never truly feels like he was part of the war followed by the effects of returning back from war can have on the soldiers who have returned.
Biopic/War – This film follows Anthony’s experience with war, it shows how war isn’t everything he was planning and how his mindset wasn’t in the right place for parts of his experience. The war side of the film shows us just how different war has become over the years, where the ground soldiers are not as required as once before.
Settings – The film has some wonderful uses of settings with the march sequence showing us just how open the area in question will be for the soldiers.
Scene of the Movie – Returning home.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Slow start.
Final Thoughts – This is a fascinating look at the modern war effort, how the biggest problem is now waiting for the war to begin rather than the fighting.
Overall: Modern war time.
When war breaks out the marines are set to the middle east, where they must adapt to the desert condition before going into to conflict, this will test their psychical shape and their mental health as the waiting is just part of the sniper’s game.
Thoughts on Jarhead
Characters – Anthony Swofford who wrote the book the film is based on, we see how he joined the military out of college and struggled at first through the training regime. Anthony soon discovered he was ready for this life as a sniper, but his time in the gulf sees him start to lose his mind. Alan Troy becomes the best friend of Anthony’s and his spotter, he seems to be the most level-headed marine in the unit. Staff Sgt Sykes is the one running the sniper unit, he demands respect and isn’t afraid to put the marines in their place.
Performances – Jake Gyllenhaal is fantastic in the leading role, he shows everyone how he can play the calm soldier, the crazed soldier and the broken man through the scenes of the film which only increase what he is dealing with. Peter Sarsgaard give us a brilliant supporting performance which shows how the fear can be kept inside a calm outer layer. Jamie Foxx brings us the energy of a career military man.
Story – The story follows the experiences of one soldier that joins the marines before being put in the sniper division when war breaks out, he must adapt to life in the desert during the waiting game before the conflict. This story does show us just how difficult adapting to war can be for the soldiers and just how the war can be fought without needing to fire a weapon. It shows us just how the mindset can change over a set amount of time which will see the soldiers make decisions they wouldn’t normally consider making. This does focus on the idea that the main soldier Anthony never truly feels like he was part of the war followed by the effects of returning back from war can have on the soldiers who have returned.
Biopic/War – This film follows Anthony’s experience with war, it shows how war isn’t everything he was planning and how his mindset wasn’t in the right place for parts of his experience. The war side of the film shows us just how different war has become over the years, where the ground soldiers are not as required as once before.
Settings – The film has some wonderful uses of settings with the march sequence showing us just how open the area in question will be for the soldiers.
Scene of the Movie – Returning home.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Slow start.
Final Thoughts – This is a fascinating look at the modern war effort, how the biggest problem is now waiting for the war to begin rather than the fighting.
Overall: Modern war time.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Boys Don't Cry (1999) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Boys Don’t Cry starts with Teena (Swank) a young woman that wants to become a man, she uses the name Brandon to go around small American towns looking to pick up women, which has got her in trouble in the past.
On his latest trip she finds a new group of people, with Lana (Sevigny) taking her eye, with her friends and family including John (Sarsgaard), Tom (Sexton III), Candace (Goranson) all welcoming her into the group as Brandon, when her true identity is revealed there will be shocking consequence.
Thoughts on Boys Don’t Cry
Characters – Teena is a young woman that is preparing for her sex change, before that she is going around as a young man Brandon, trying to meet women. She meets a young lady in Lana, makes new friends, but she is on the run which will soon catch up with her. This is a based on a real person that is going through the difficult process of wanting to have a sex change. Lana is the young lady that Brandon takes a shine to, she lives the dead end life that she isn’t enjoying and Brandon brings a new feeling about it, though she is left in a difficult position when the truth comes out. John and Tom are two of the group of friends that happily welcome Brandon into their group, when they learn the truth, they will go to extreme measures to get revenge.
Performances – Hilary Swank went on to win an Oscar for her role in the film, you can see why because she is fantastic in the difficult role. Chloe Sevigny shows us jus how her supporting role she can make a huge impact in the film. Peter Sarsgaard and Brendon Sexton III both are disturbing in their roles in the film which shows just how they could make to truly disgusting human beings come to life.
Story – The story here follows a young lady preparing for a sex change, that would go around looking for women, only for her secret to come back when the prejudice locals can’t deal with people somebody they can’t explain in their lives. This is a film way before it own time, even though it is only 20 years old, it is based on the real crime which would easily have been given a bigger spotlight in todays world. we do step into the world of transgenders, which is always difficult to word correctly because it is a sensitive subject. What occurs in the film is surprising and shocking that you couldn’t see happening.
Biopic/Crime/Romance – The film uses the biopic side of the film to show the romance and crime against Brandon Teena a young transgender that is still wanting to figure out how to get through the sex change.
Settings – The film keeps us in the locations which shows how the smaller towns can operate and have mindsets that don’t accept people that are different.
Scene of the Movie – The first night together.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The actions of the men.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most difficult movies you will see, it has a sensitive subject on the table which will show the way people can act towards people.
Overall: Must watch movie.
On his latest trip she finds a new group of people, with Lana (Sevigny) taking her eye, with her friends and family including John (Sarsgaard), Tom (Sexton III), Candace (Goranson) all welcoming her into the group as Brandon, when her true identity is revealed there will be shocking consequence.
Thoughts on Boys Don’t Cry
Characters – Teena is a young woman that is preparing for her sex change, before that she is going around as a young man Brandon, trying to meet women. She meets a young lady in Lana, makes new friends, but she is on the run which will soon catch up with her. This is a based on a real person that is going through the difficult process of wanting to have a sex change. Lana is the young lady that Brandon takes a shine to, she lives the dead end life that she isn’t enjoying and Brandon brings a new feeling about it, though she is left in a difficult position when the truth comes out. John and Tom are two of the group of friends that happily welcome Brandon into their group, when they learn the truth, they will go to extreme measures to get revenge.
Performances – Hilary Swank went on to win an Oscar for her role in the film, you can see why because she is fantastic in the difficult role. Chloe Sevigny shows us jus how her supporting role she can make a huge impact in the film. Peter Sarsgaard and Brendon Sexton III both are disturbing in their roles in the film which shows just how they could make to truly disgusting human beings come to life.
Story – The story here follows a young lady preparing for a sex change, that would go around looking for women, only for her secret to come back when the prejudice locals can’t deal with people somebody they can’t explain in their lives. This is a film way before it own time, even though it is only 20 years old, it is based on the real crime which would easily have been given a bigger spotlight in todays world. we do step into the world of transgenders, which is always difficult to word correctly because it is a sensitive subject. What occurs in the film is surprising and shocking that you couldn’t see happening.
Biopic/Crime/Romance – The film uses the biopic side of the film to show the romance and crime against Brandon Teena a young transgender that is still wanting to figure out how to get through the sex change.
Settings – The film keeps us in the locations which shows how the smaller towns can operate and have mindsets that don’t accept people that are different.
Scene of the Movie – The first night together.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The actions of the men.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most difficult movies you will see, it has a sensitive subject on the table which will show the way people can act towards people.
Overall: Must watch movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Magnificent Seven (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Full disclosure, I have never seen The 1960s Magnificent Seven film, nor do I care that at its core it is a retelling of the Japanese legend of the Seven Samurai. This is not a comparison review. Instead this is a simple review of what I watched on screen. Not beholden to anything other than itself as film and it being a western.
That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The Magnificent Seven hits all the appropriate marks you would expect from a classic western. The sprawling landscapes, big gunfights against all odds, character musical cues, honor bound good guys and dastardly bad guys. The Magnificent Seven is an entertaining gallop for western fans both old and new alike.
That is not to say that this film is anything more thought provoking then a typical “White hats vs Black Hats” western story. However it is the performance of the actors and their portrayal of somewhat typical characters that is the soul and charm of the film. Led by Denzel Washington who plays Sam Chisolm, the deputized bounty hunter hired to free a simple town from under the tyranny of a rich minor who uses violence and intimidation to take what he wants. Chisolm puts together an unlikely posse of the jokester gun-shooter Josh Faraday (Chris Pratt), the civil war veteran sharpshooter Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke), his knife welding companion Billy Rocks (Byung-hun Lee), the outlaw Vasquez (Manuel Garcia-Fulfo), the grizzly frontiersman Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio) and the native warrior Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier). Together they take on the dastardly greedy Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard) and his army of paid mercenaries. The entire ensemble gives solid and entertaining performances, however it is the chemistry among the cast that creates the feeling that they had a blast making this film together, much to our delight.
When we put these elements together the film works on an entertaining level. While some may find it forgettable once it is over, they will no doubt enjoy the ride along the way. In a year where the summer blockbusters have been mostly disappointing and forgettable, The Magnificent Seven is a bright spot on the film landscape than most big budget films this year.
That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The Magnificent Seven hits all the appropriate marks you would expect from a classic western. The sprawling landscapes, big gunfights against all odds, character musical cues, honor bound good guys and dastardly bad guys. The Magnificent Seven is an entertaining gallop for western fans both old and new alike.
That is not to say that this film is anything more thought provoking then a typical “White hats vs Black Hats” western story. However it is the performance of the actors and their portrayal of somewhat typical characters that is the soul and charm of the film. Led by Denzel Washington who plays Sam Chisolm, the deputized bounty hunter hired to free a simple town from under the tyranny of a rich minor who uses violence and intimidation to take what he wants. Chisolm puts together an unlikely posse of the jokester gun-shooter Josh Faraday (Chris Pratt), the civil war veteran sharpshooter Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke), his knife welding companion Billy Rocks (Byung-hun Lee), the outlaw Vasquez (Manuel Garcia-Fulfo), the grizzly frontiersman Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio) and the native warrior Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier). Together they take on the dastardly greedy Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard) and his army of paid mercenaries. The entire ensemble gives solid and entertaining performances, however it is the chemistry among the cast that creates the feeling that they had a blast making this film together, much to our delight.
When we put these elements together the film works on an entertaining level. While some may find it forgettable once it is over, they will no doubt enjoy the ride along the way. In a year where the summer blockbusters have been mostly disappointing and forgettable, The Magnificent Seven is a bright spot on the film landscape than most big budget films this year.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Knight and Day (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Knight and Day, directed by James Mangold (previous director of 3:10 to Yuma and Walk the Line), is an uninspiring, uninteresting action movie. Getting both of those words to work with the phrase “action movie” is quite a challenge, but somehow, through a group effort, it was pulled off. The movie itself gets boring primarily because the Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz have little to no chemistry between them both. Useless action sequences merely add to the feeling that all those involved were ruining a great premise for an action/date movie.
The plot of the movie started out fun and original, but again, the lack of a spark between the two leads just led to disinterest. The director made ample use of what I’ll call the “invisible montage,” wherein one of the main characters is semi-conscious, and what happens to them is revealed in a series of blurred, but outlandishly crazy situations only a few seconds in length and increasing in surrealism. This was a clever, if overused technique, but oftentimes the entire movie felt like longer episodes of these montages, with little reason for each to be happening other than to fill the quota for requisite action sequences. Because of some poor foreshadowing in the beginning of the film, even the finale became extremely predictable and had no weight.
Tom Cruise, playing the bizarrely comic spy Roy Miller, manages to pull his weight in his role. Cruise’s special kind of natural crazy is actually an advantage to the character he is playing. His unpredictability and his utter charm kept me, at the very least, entertained throughout the film.
Cameron Diaz, playing clueless midwesterner June Havens is obviously the weak link here. She can’t seem to keep up with Cruise’s character on screen, and aside from a few cutesy moments in the film, is outclassed by her co-star, and often by members of the supporting cast as well. Diaz doesn’t have a reputation for doing in-depth character studies of her portrayals, but the very least she could do is drop the same confused face she uses for most of the movie.
Together, Cruise and Diaz lack the chemistry that would have made this a decent movie without forcing the audience to shut off the emotional parts of their brains. In fact, the key make-out scene between the two of them was so clichéd as to be boring. Looking back at the entire movie, I believe that after their first few minutes together, the rest of their interactions just felt forced.
As for the rest of the cast, I have no special complaints or accolades, but I would like to single out one individual, and say that I would have loved to see more of Peter Sarsgaard. It’s immediately obvious that knows what he is doing on screen, and he deserved a much larger role than the one given to him.
In summary, Knight and Day is definitely worth skipping out on. Wait a week and soon enough some real 4th of July action blockbusters will be coming out. We’ll be sure to let you know which ones are the real deal and which ones are the duds. It’s just too bad this one was a dud, because it definitely had a lot of potential.
The plot of the movie started out fun and original, but again, the lack of a spark between the two leads just led to disinterest. The director made ample use of what I’ll call the “invisible montage,” wherein one of the main characters is semi-conscious, and what happens to them is revealed in a series of blurred, but outlandishly crazy situations only a few seconds in length and increasing in surrealism. This was a clever, if overused technique, but oftentimes the entire movie felt like longer episodes of these montages, with little reason for each to be happening other than to fill the quota for requisite action sequences. Because of some poor foreshadowing in the beginning of the film, even the finale became extremely predictable and had no weight.
Tom Cruise, playing the bizarrely comic spy Roy Miller, manages to pull his weight in his role. Cruise’s special kind of natural crazy is actually an advantage to the character he is playing. His unpredictability and his utter charm kept me, at the very least, entertained throughout the film.
Cameron Diaz, playing clueless midwesterner June Havens is obviously the weak link here. She can’t seem to keep up with Cruise’s character on screen, and aside from a few cutesy moments in the film, is outclassed by her co-star, and often by members of the supporting cast as well. Diaz doesn’t have a reputation for doing in-depth character studies of her portrayals, but the very least she could do is drop the same confused face she uses for most of the movie.
Together, Cruise and Diaz lack the chemistry that would have made this a decent movie without forcing the audience to shut off the emotional parts of their brains. In fact, the key make-out scene between the two of them was so clichéd as to be boring. Looking back at the entire movie, I believe that after their first few minutes together, the rest of their interactions just felt forced.
As for the rest of the cast, I have no special complaints or accolades, but I would like to single out one individual, and say that I would have loved to see more of Peter Sarsgaard. It’s immediately obvious that knows what he is doing on screen, and he deserved a much larger role than the one given to him.
In summary, Knight and Day is definitely worth skipping out on. Wait a week and soon enough some real 4th of July action blockbusters will be coming out. We’ll be sure to let you know which ones are the real deal and which ones are the duds. It’s just too bad this one was a dud, because it definitely had a lot of potential.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Magnificent Seven (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Hornery Exit.
As a big fan of the original – a staple of many Bank Holiday afternoons in my youth – I was prepared to be sniffy about this remake and came to the film on my high-horse (I left that tied to the rail outside the cinema by the way). But I was surprised to have my expectations reset.
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 12, 2022
Too Long Of a Setup for a Terrific Payoff
The rap on the films of the DCEU - especially the films directed by Zach Snyder - is that they are too dark, dour and a “downer”, with very little joy or sunshine in the images or themes.
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)