Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers Revenge of the Fallen (2009) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The good, the bad, and the down right ugly return in the sequel to Michael Bay’s 2007 summer blockbuster, Transformers. Revenge of the Fallen picks up 2 years after the events of the first film and really shows why Michael Bay was again the perfect choice to helm this franchise. Speculation about how long the film was going to be has finally been answered. 2 and a half hours for the uninitiated would seem a terrifying prospect as characters are introduced from all corners; but for fans of the bots, it’s a thrill ride from the very start, right up until the end credits role. Shia Le Beouf and Megan Foxx return as Sam Witwicky and love interest Mikeala in a sequel that’s as loud and obnoxious as it is long. As with the first film, the story is a little thin on the ground, but thankfully there is enough here to satisfy even the hardest to please. The Decepticons (the bad guys) are mobilizing once again to take control of Earth, while the Autobots (the good guys) working together with human intelligence try to destroy their feared rivals. It’s based on plastic toy figures, so you can’t expect much more.
Special effects are again outstanding with a finish on them that not even the first movie could hold a candle to, the transformers once more look 100% realistic in their presence, though with a $200m budget, outstanding was the least to be expected. Regrettably, the action sequences sometimes can look messy, with a mash of metal making it hard to distinguish who is attacking who or who has fallen; one heart wrenching scene in particular makes this point even more evident. Acting from all corners is sublime, Le Beouf certainly knows how to do that cocky teenager and Megan Foxx provides a nice bit of lustre to place on the horizon. But, by far the standout is Julie White as Mrs. Witwicky, her performance in the first film was brilliant, but she has exceeded that by a mile in this instalment; utterly hilarious is the only way to describe her acting. Of the robotic kind, Peter Cullen does an excellent job as the voice of Autobot leader Optimus Prime, with the same gravely texture that made him such a hit for the cartoon series in the first place. Hugo Weaving also returns as the voice of arch nemesis Megatron. Bay packs on the slapstick in this sequel, perhaps going a little too far with the humour; after all, it isn’t supposed to be an outright comedy, though some of the funny touches are out-and-out hilarious. The finale is, as with its predecessor a little short and to the point, though many would say it was ‘succinct’, but any longer and the film would have started to drag, Bay obviously learning his lesson from the mess that was Pearl Harbour. Overall then, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is an excellent sequel to what promises to be an exciting future for the franchise. Whilst it may not match its predecessor in terms of story and plot, it is a must watch for all action cravers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-2009/
Special effects are again outstanding with a finish on them that not even the first movie could hold a candle to, the transformers once more look 100% realistic in their presence, though with a $200m budget, outstanding was the least to be expected. Regrettably, the action sequences sometimes can look messy, with a mash of metal making it hard to distinguish who is attacking who or who has fallen; one heart wrenching scene in particular makes this point even more evident. Acting from all corners is sublime, Le Beouf certainly knows how to do that cocky teenager and Megan Foxx provides a nice bit of lustre to place on the horizon. But, by far the standout is Julie White as Mrs. Witwicky, her performance in the first film was brilliant, but she has exceeded that by a mile in this instalment; utterly hilarious is the only way to describe her acting. Of the robotic kind, Peter Cullen does an excellent job as the voice of Autobot leader Optimus Prime, with the same gravely texture that made him such a hit for the cartoon series in the first place. Hugo Weaving also returns as the voice of arch nemesis Megatron. Bay packs on the slapstick in this sequel, perhaps going a little too far with the humour; after all, it isn’t supposed to be an outright comedy, though some of the funny touches are out-and-out hilarious. The finale is, as with its predecessor a little short and to the point, though many would say it was ‘succinct’, but any longer and the film would have started to drag, Bay obviously learning his lesson from the mess that was Pearl Harbour. Overall then, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is an excellent sequel to what promises to be an exciting future for the franchise. Whilst it may not match its predecessor in terms of story and plot, it is a must watch for all action cravers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/18/transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen-2009/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Casablanca (1942) in Movies
Feb 13, 2019
A classic in every sense of the word
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns, in all the world, she had to walk into mine."
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Mar 1, 2019
Doesn't Quite Succeed In What It Was Attempting To Do
Liam Neeson has stated that COLD PURSUIT is going to be his last action film. And, if that is the case, he certainly picked an interesting one to go out on.
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the Norwegian film KRAFTIDIOTEN and Directed by the same person (Hans Peter Moland), COLD PURSUIT follows snowplow driver Nels Coxman (Neeson) who's son dies of a drug overdose. It's not long before Coxman uses his "certain set of skills" to settle the score.
And that is how this movie was marketed (taking advantage of Neeson's past 10 years of action hero status) and that is too bad for those who are going into this film expecting a "standard Neeson kick butt revenge action flick) are going to be disappointed, for Cold Pursuit has parts of that, but it also has an element to it that is going to take some getting used to - it's "Norwegian sense of humor".
To say this film is a "Dark Comedy" does not do it justice, for the comedy in this film (and there IS comedy) is so rooted in the violence and action of the proceedings that, at first, the audience does not know how to react to it. By the end, it is clear that this is a comedy - and I wished that it would have worn it's comedic elements just a little more on it's sleeve. But then, I guess, I would be missing the point of what makes up the "Norwegian sense of humor" - oddity and subtlety. And this film IS odd from the setting (a remote ski resort village outside of Denver) to the warring drug gangs (city thugs vs. Native Americans) to the lazy Sherriff and laid back townspeople to Coxman's hippy, drug addled wife (Laura Dern). It is an odd assortment of people and circumstances, but not quite as add as...say...Twin Peaks.
And that's what hurts it. It IS a subtle film with subtle humor and subtle quirks, but (at times) is TOO subtle for an American audience that is used to being hit over the head with themes and quirks and violence.
One who is NOT subtle in this film is Neeson as Coxman. He brings the rugged, dependable man of action that one has come to expect during his action-hero phase. Also not subtle (not by a long-shot) is Tom Bateman as the main bad guy, Viking (they all have nicknames) who telegraphs that he is a bad guy by being over-the-top, doing everything but kicking a puppy and twirling his mustache.
Domenick Lombardozzi as Mustang (one of Vikings' henchmen) and Tom Jackson as White Bull (leader of the Native American clan) find the right line between subtlety and over-acting and ground this film (for the most part). The rest of the cast (including John Doman and Emmy Rossum as the town Sheriffs) flit through this film, uneventfully and uninterestingly, neither adding nor detracting from the events. Only William Forsythe, as Neeson's shady brother and Elizabeth Thais (as his wife Anne) manage to rise above things in the limited amount of screen time they are given. And, finally, Laura Dern is wasted in an underwritten - and under-performed - role of Neeson's wife.
I can hear Director Moland screaming to his cast "Less, less...give me less...no more...More...MORE!!!" and the result is an uneven film that is underplayed too much in some ways and overplayed WAY too much in others. And this is too bad, for he had an interesting concept going, he just didn't execute it (at least not with this group of performers) very well. I'll be interested in seeing the original Norwegian film, KRAFTIDIOTEN, to see if it worked there.
Letter Grade: B- (for I applaud what it was trying to do)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
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).
Great Villain (1 more)
Great Crime Story
Too many characters (1 more)
Some characters not needed
An ex-child soldier, a violent, hairless man, and a drug lord make up the cast of characters in the Thomas Harris novel, 'Cari Mora.' Mora, our title character, is the ex-child soldier that now lives in Miami, Flordia, where she watches over a deceased drug lord's mansion. This drug lord is the real-life Pablo Escobar.
Written in Harris' crime fiction style, 'Cari Mora' quickly starts with men competing to get to the rumored millions of dollars in gold that is suppose to be at the Escobar mansion. One of these men is a very memorable German character named Hans-Peter Schneider, who readers come to know as someone that is hired to kill/deliver people to rich customers, as well as selling organs on the black market: " He [Schneider] could see his reflection in the glass side of his liquid cremation machine where he was dissolving Karla, a girl who hadn't worked out for business." When Schneider meets Mora, he immediately wants to sell her to a high paying customer.
The novel's main subject is Escobar's hidden gold, but readers also get a glimpse into the underworld of human trafficking and hired thugs. Most interestingly, the story surrounds the dark past of certain characters - - - mostly Mora and Schneider- - - who also happen to be the most put-together characters in all of the novel. All other characters seem to be filler, where most of their stories either don't end or aren't explained. Such as the character Benito, when the reader gets to follow him home, there is a mere snippet about his family life that leaves us wanting more: " Lupe was waiting at Benito's house, in spirit, in the small garden she had made behind Benito's house. He felt her presence warm and close to him as fireflies winked over the white blossoms, luminous under the moon. Benito poured a glass of Flor de Cana for himself and one for her. He drank both of them sitting in the garden with Lupe, and being there together was enough. "
While the treasure hunt is going on, a man named Jesus Villarreal becomes an important character that used to be Escobar's captain- - - and who knows exactly where the gold is hidden; he has not only made a deal with Schneider, but also another drug lord named Don Ernesto- - - if he tells exactly how to get the gold, safely, his wife, son and sister-in-law must be taken care of when he is gone.
This story has twist and turns known in every great crime fiction novel: a woman who is more than what she seems, thugs with guns, dark backstories, and fast-reading action. Yet, the story contains so many characters,even new ones coming in on almost every chapter, that it could be hard for readers to keep in mind who is who, especially with not enough description to tell them apart. Another disappointment is the character named Detective Terry Robles, who had such an amazing story to tell - - - from he and his wife being shot up by druggies to Robles seeking revenge when his wife can't exactly remember who she is,let alone who he is, because of her injury - - - but his story never comes to fruition, and we never get to experience the end of it.
As great as a character Mora is, I personally believe that Schneider would have been a much more interesting view point to read from. The story would have taken on a completely different appeal if the focus had been on strictly him. For instance, one of the most intriguing parts was reading about Schneider's past which may hold the key to why he is who he is : "His parents were in the freezer and he could hear their voices through the door. They could not get out because the freezer door was secured with a chain Hans had tied in an excellent chain knot, the way his father had taught him to tie a chain, shaking the knot until the links jammed tight. "
Although I wish for a different view point, I will say again that Mora is a well-written character - - - her character just becomes flat in certain places- - - but she still makes the story worth reading. Harris did a wonderful job in showing the darker side of life, as he has always done with his Hannibal series. If anyone is a fan of the Netflix show 'Narcos,' or crime fiction surrounding drug lords, they will certainly enjoy this book from beginning to end.
Written in Harris' crime fiction style, 'Cari Mora' quickly starts with men competing to get to the rumored millions of dollars in gold that is suppose to be at the Escobar mansion. One of these men is a very memorable German character named Hans-Peter Schneider, who readers come to know as someone that is hired to kill/deliver people to rich customers, as well as selling organs on the black market: " He [Schneider] could see his reflection in the glass side of his liquid cremation machine where he was dissolving Karla, a girl who hadn't worked out for business." When Schneider meets Mora, he immediately wants to sell her to a high paying customer.
The novel's main subject is Escobar's hidden gold, but readers also get a glimpse into the underworld of human trafficking and hired thugs. Most interestingly, the story surrounds the dark past of certain characters - - - mostly Mora and Schneider- - - who also happen to be the most put-together characters in all of the novel. All other characters seem to be filler, where most of their stories either don't end or aren't explained. Such as the character Benito, when the reader gets to follow him home, there is a mere snippet about his family life that leaves us wanting more: " Lupe was waiting at Benito's house, in spirit, in the small garden she had made behind Benito's house. He felt her presence warm and close to him as fireflies winked over the white blossoms, luminous under the moon. Benito poured a glass of Flor de Cana for himself and one for her. He drank both of them sitting in the garden with Lupe, and being there together was enough. "
While the treasure hunt is going on, a man named Jesus Villarreal becomes an important character that used to be Escobar's captain- - - and who knows exactly where the gold is hidden; he has not only made a deal with Schneider, but also another drug lord named Don Ernesto- - - if he tells exactly how to get the gold, safely, his wife, son and sister-in-law must be taken care of when he is gone.
This story has twist and turns known in every great crime fiction novel: a woman who is more than what she seems, thugs with guns, dark backstories, and fast-reading action. Yet, the story contains so many characters,even new ones coming in on almost every chapter, that it could be hard for readers to keep in mind who is who, especially with not enough description to tell them apart. Another disappointment is the character named Detective Terry Robles, who had such an amazing story to tell - - - from he and his wife being shot up by druggies to Robles seeking revenge when his wife can't exactly remember who she is,let alone who he is, because of her injury - - - but his story never comes to fruition, and we never get to experience the end of it.
As great as a character Mora is, I personally believe that Schneider would have been a much more interesting view point to read from. The story would have taken on a completely different appeal if the focus had been on strictly him. For instance, one of the most intriguing parts was reading about Schneider's past which may hold the key to why he is who he is : "His parents were in the freezer and he could hear their voices through the door. They could not get out because the freezer door was secured with a chain Hans had tied in an excellent chain knot, the way his father had taught him to tie a chain, shaking the knot until the links jammed tight. "
Although I wish for a different view point, I will say again that Mora is a well-written character - - - her character just becomes flat in certain places- - - but she still makes the story worth reading. Harris did a wonderful job in showing the darker side of life, as he has always done with his Hannibal series. If anyone is a fan of the Netflix show 'Narcos,' or crime fiction surrounding drug lords, they will certainly enjoy this book from beginning to end.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Big Little Lies - Season 1 in TV
Feb 8, 2019 (Updated Feb 8, 2019)
Rich White People Problems: The Show
As more news of Season 2 of this show seeps out, I decided to eventually get around to catching the first season of this highly praised and seemingly universally lauded show. I went in expecting greatness from this thing after reading all of the glowing critic's reviews. I am also a huge fan of many of the cast members involved in this project, so knowing nothing about the plot or subject matter the show is based on, I went in blind; excited to see what this series had in store.
The series opens with some ominous editing and vague hints that a major crime has been committed, which we eventually realise to be a murder. Then we are taken backwards tin time and are introduced to Reese Witherspoon's character Madeline, whom initially comes off as entitled and annoying, but you assume that this is going to have a purpose in her character's arc and she will grow on you. You are wrong to assume that as she is extremely irritating throughout the entire duration of the series, constantly interrupting other characters lines and sticking her oar in during group situations, just for the sake of clinging on to the spotlight and keeping herself at the centre of attention.
Thankfully, Nicole Kidman's character Celeste is less annoying and instead just a bit strange. We see pretty early on that she is a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her much younger husband played by Alexander Skarsgard. At first this is pretty harrowing and sad to see, but for some reason, - and I don't want to kink shame anyone, - but it seems like she kind of likes it. The third main character we are introduced to is Jane, played by Shailene Woodley who immediately seems like damaged goods.
The "conflict," is then set up. After the first day at school we see a highly unrealistic scene play out as the most insensitive teacher in the world with zero foresight gathers all of the children in her class along with their parents outside the school gates. A girl has marks on her neck from being choked by one of the other kids. The teacher then asks the girl to point out the kid that did this to her (in front of the entire class and their parents!) and she points to Jane's son Ziggy. The boy denies any wrongdoing, but the girl who has been hurt's mother, (played by Laura Dern, whom I normally really like,) is a horrible, bitter bitch who responds to the situation by berating the accused boy in front of everyone, degrading his mother in the process for defending her child and not "making," him apologise.
*Insert Peter Griffin "Oh my God, who the hell cares?" meme here.*
Yeah, this is the kind of schoolyard bullshit that this show expects us to treat as a life or death issue. The whole thing is full of non-issues and petty whines centred around 'he said/she said,' nonsense. Then we are supposed to relate to these immature, venomous parents who don't do anything to help the situation whatsoever. Meanwhile the show treats domestic abuse, - something that is a very real and threatening issue, - as just a weird kink in this oddball couple's relationship.
It is clear that all of these parents clearly care far more about self-image than they do about their own children, which makes all of them extremely gross and off putting as characters. They constantly make up excuses as if to try and justify themselves and claim that the bitchy, conniving choices that they make towards each other is for the sake of their kids, when it is clearly just to one up each other in pathetic, petty social warfare and childish beefs.
Website theodysseyonline.com has an article called, '13 Reasons Why Big Little Lies Is So Powerful.' I truly fail to see what is apparently so powerful and ground-breaking about this series. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say; that domestic abuse and rape are bad things done by evil people? Wow, what a brave and unique stance to take! I also resent the idea that everyone that says anything remotely negative about this show is a women-hating misogynist. I consider myself a left-leaning liberal and a feminist, I am a strong supporter of equal rights amongst all genders and races and I do regular work for a women's mental health charity, but I can still spot an overrated, hollow waste of 7 hours when I see one.
Overall, even though this season only last 7 episodes, it is not worth your time. After watching the first 2 episodes I thought about giving up on it, but then I thought about all of the glowing reviews and thought, 'no, surely this must get better.' Let me save you seven hours of your time; it doesn't. This is a melodramatic glorified soap opera that doesn't handle any of the issues that it tries to tackle well and it is filled, - to the point it is bursting at the seams, - with small scope issues and minor annoyances treated as life threatening scenarios, all the while brushing off the genuinely scary and potentially life threatening scenario of domestic abuse.
The series opens with some ominous editing and vague hints that a major crime has been committed, which we eventually realise to be a murder. Then we are taken backwards tin time and are introduced to Reese Witherspoon's character Madeline, whom initially comes off as entitled and annoying, but you assume that this is going to have a purpose in her character's arc and she will grow on you. You are wrong to assume that as she is extremely irritating throughout the entire duration of the series, constantly interrupting other characters lines and sticking her oar in during group situations, just for the sake of clinging on to the spotlight and keeping herself at the centre of attention.
Thankfully, Nicole Kidman's character Celeste is less annoying and instead just a bit strange. We see pretty early on that she is a victim of domestic abuse at the hands of her much younger husband played by Alexander Skarsgard. At first this is pretty harrowing and sad to see, but for some reason, - and I don't want to kink shame anyone, - but it seems like she kind of likes it. The third main character we are introduced to is Jane, played by Shailene Woodley who immediately seems like damaged goods.
The "conflict," is then set up. After the first day at school we see a highly unrealistic scene play out as the most insensitive teacher in the world with zero foresight gathers all of the children in her class along with their parents outside the school gates. A girl has marks on her neck from being choked by one of the other kids. The teacher then asks the girl to point out the kid that did this to her (in front of the entire class and their parents!) and she points to Jane's son Ziggy. The boy denies any wrongdoing, but the girl who has been hurt's mother, (played by Laura Dern, whom I normally really like,) is a horrible, bitter bitch who responds to the situation by berating the accused boy in front of everyone, degrading his mother in the process for defending her child and not "making," him apologise.
*Insert Peter Griffin "Oh my God, who the hell cares?" meme here.*
Yeah, this is the kind of schoolyard bullshit that this show expects us to treat as a life or death issue. The whole thing is full of non-issues and petty whines centred around 'he said/she said,' nonsense. Then we are supposed to relate to these immature, venomous parents who don't do anything to help the situation whatsoever. Meanwhile the show treats domestic abuse, - something that is a very real and threatening issue, - as just a weird kink in this oddball couple's relationship.
It is clear that all of these parents clearly care far more about self-image than they do about their own children, which makes all of them extremely gross and off putting as characters. They constantly make up excuses as if to try and justify themselves and claim that the bitchy, conniving choices that they make towards each other is for the sake of their kids, when it is clearly just to one up each other in pathetic, petty social warfare and childish beefs.
Website theodysseyonline.com has an article called, '13 Reasons Why Big Little Lies Is So Powerful.' I truly fail to see what is apparently so powerful and ground-breaking about this series. I'm not even sure what it is trying to say; that domestic abuse and rape are bad things done by evil people? Wow, what a brave and unique stance to take! I also resent the idea that everyone that says anything remotely negative about this show is a women-hating misogynist. I consider myself a left-leaning liberal and a feminist, I am a strong supporter of equal rights amongst all genders and races and I do regular work for a women's mental health charity, but I can still spot an overrated, hollow waste of 7 hours when I see one.
Overall, even though this season only last 7 episodes, it is not worth your time. After watching the first 2 episodes I thought about giving up on it, but then I thought about all of the glowing reviews and thought, 'no, surely this must get better.' Let me save you seven hours of your time; it doesn't. This is a melodramatic glorified soap opera that doesn't handle any of the issues that it tries to tackle well and it is filled, - to the point it is bursting at the seams, - with small scope issues and minor annoyances treated as life threatening scenarios, all the while brushing off the genuinely scary and potentially life threatening scenario of domestic abuse.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
This is an interesting piece. Originally commissioned for a 30 minute documentary piece, Peter Jackson found so much footage and so many stories to tell that he managed to extend it into a feature length production.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.