Search
Search results
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2072 KP) rated The Downtown Desperadoes in Books
Jan 19, 2020
Returning to NYC to Help a Friend
It all starts with a phone call. Ricky Kidd is confused by the strange message, and he is certain it is a prank, expect for the fact that the voice sounds familiar. It’s a couple of hours later when he recognizes it as Brother Phillip, the man who had helped him track down his younger brother when Joel was kidnapped during the class trip to New York City back in the spring. When his father tries to find out what is happening with Brother Phillip, he discovers the mission the man run has burned down, and the police believe that Brother Phillip died in the fire. The only problem is, the fire took place before the phone call. Ricky is able to convince his family and friends, Ralphy and Mike, to change their Thanksgiving plans and go to the city, but when they arrive, things only get weirder. Did they really know Brother Phillip? Is he in danger? Or is he a criminal?
Unlike many middle grade mysteries, this one is a direct sequel to an earlier book. To completely understand the events that happen here, it is best to have already read LOST BENEATH MANHATTAN. But if you haven’t read that one yet, there is enough context here to follow the events as they unfold. And what a plot! While I remembered a few key things, like the climax, I was still caught up in the twists and turns. This book is a master class is dropping clues into a story, and I still marvel at how Mr. Brouwer does it. The characters are developed enough to make us care, but they are a bit on the thin side. The adult in me notices that, but as I’m reading I don’t care. The book was originally written for the Christian market, but the Christian elements aren’t overwhelming here. These stories were originally released in the 1990’s, so a few references are dated, but it isn’t enough to ruin the story in the slightest. This book is still as strong now as when I first read it. Readers of all ages will be thrilled they picked it up.
Unlike many middle grade mysteries, this one is a direct sequel to an earlier book. To completely understand the events that happen here, it is best to have already read LOST BENEATH MANHATTAN. But if you haven’t read that one yet, there is enough context here to follow the events as they unfold. And what a plot! While I remembered a few key things, like the climax, I was still caught up in the twists and turns. This book is a master class is dropping clues into a story, and I still marvel at how Mr. Brouwer does it. The characters are developed enough to make us care, but they are a bit on the thin side. The adult in me notices that, but as I’m reading I don’t care. The book was originally written for the Christian market, but the Christian elements aren’t overwhelming here. These stories were originally released in the 1990’s, so a few references are dated, but it isn’t enough to ruin the story in the slightest. This book is still as strong now as when I first read it. Readers of all ages will be thrilled they picked it up.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Mar 12, 2020
did i speak too soon?
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you've read my other reviews, you know that I'm currently in a Hitchcock film class. I've been dreading watching his films because of the ones I've seen, with the exception of Psycho, have been the same story told in different ways. I was equally as dreadful when it came to watching this film. However, I was pleasantly surprised.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
ClareR (5577 KP) rated The Rose Code in Books
Jun 26, 2022
The Rose Code is an exciting historical mystery with a definite ‘thriller’ edge to it. It’s set in Bletchley Park - which is precisely what drew me to it. I’ve been there with some friends, and discovered that one of their grandmothers had actually worked there during the war.
I actually listened to this on an audiobook, and although there were one or two pronunciation issues, I thought the narrator Saskia Maarleveld did a really good job. She added extra character to the three main women in the story - all friends, but all so different from one another: the debutante with fluent German; the practical East Londoner who wants to escape poverty; the local village girl who, it turns out, is a genius cryptographer.
I really enjoyed the way that these characters were developed, and how their unlikely friendship grew. The secondary characters were also all interesting and well-developed, and all came together at the climactic end. I was gripped throughout, listening at every opportunity. And the ending really was a breathless race to the finish.
Oh, and there’s a rather large part given to Prince Phillip as well. There is a foot placed in fact, but I’m not really sure just how much. Oslo Kendall did exist, and was Prince Phillips girlfriend (or friend, at the very least) before he married Queen (then Princess) Elizabeth. I liked the “is it true or not” element.
If you like war time fiction, and have an interest in Bletchley Park - or want to find out more - you might just enjoy this as much as I did.
I actually listened to this on an audiobook, and although there were one or two pronunciation issues, I thought the narrator Saskia Maarleveld did a really good job. She added extra character to the three main women in the story - all friends, but all so different from one another: the debutante with fluent German; the practical East Londoner who wants to escape poverty; the local village girl who, it turns out, is a genius cryptographer.
I really enjoyed the way that these characters were developed, and how their unlikely friendship grew. The secondary characters were also all interesting and well-developed, and all came together at the climactic end. I was gripped throughout, listening at every opportunity. And the ending really was a breathless race to the finish.
Oh, and there’s a rather large part given to Prince Phillip as well. There is a foot placed in fact, but I’m not really sure just how much. Oslo Kendall did exist, and was Prince Phillips girlfriend (or friend, at the very least) before he married Queen (then Princess) Elizabeth. I liked the “is it true or not” element.
If you like war time fiction, and have an interest in Bletchley Park - or want to find out more - you might just enjoy this as much as I did.
I love a good twist on a classic fairy story. This fairy story was Sleeping Beauty. But what if the true love’s kiss that woke her wasn’t her’s?
In this story a vein Prince is in need of a Princess to marry to rule his kingdom. He hears of the sleeping princess and her beauty, and so decides that she shall be the one he marries. Of course there has to be some source of evil and in this case it’s the royal family’s advisor and holy man – his character remind me a little of Disney’s Jafar (not a bad thing I might add). And so because of the magic and this evil sorcerer’s desire to have the kingdom to himself, our Prince gets into a bit
of bother. He meets a orphan girl and her friend along the way and they set off on the Prince’s quest fighting all evils along the way. I love her character, a “I don’t need a man” heroine. Someone a bit rough around the edges Someone who is quite vocal about his vein and unrealistic views. No need to say their personalities clash a bit. But they teach each other a lot along the way. Their relationship is written well, if you’ve read enough and seen enough love stories you can see where
this relationship will end up.
When Aurora awakes, I must admit I find her character tedious and shallow. I found her quite unrealistic and unbelievable. Prince Phillip was an interesting character to read; honest, sly and manipulative – but not in any malicious way. I actually really enjoyed his character. He I found was written far better than Aurora, and therefore I thought that their characters wouldn’t blend that well. But this story isn’t really about them, is it?
In this story a vein Prince is in need of a Princess to marry to rule his kingdom. He hears of the sleeping princess and her beauty, and so decides that she shall be the one he marries. Of course there has to be some source of evil and in this case it’s the royal family’s advisor and holy man – his character remind me a little of Disney’s Jafar (not a bad thing I might add). And so because of the magic and this evil sorcerer’s desire to have the kingdom to himself, our Prince gets into a bit
of bother. He meets a orphan girl and her friend along the way and they set off on the Prince’s quest fighting all evils along the way. I love her character, a “I don’t need a man” heroine. Someone a bit rough around the edges Someone who is quite vocal about his vein and unrealistic views. No need to say their personalities clash a bit. But they teach each other a lot along the way. Their relationship is written well, if you’ve read enough and seen enough love stories you can see where
this relationship will end up.
When Aurora awakes, I must admit I find her character tedious and shallow. I found her quite unrealistic and unbelievable. Prince Phillip was an interesting character to read; honest, sly and manipulative – but not in any malicious way. I actually really enjoyed his character. He I found was written far better than Aurora, and therefore I thought that their characters wouldn’t blend that well. But this story isn’t really about them, is it?
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
80 minutes of magic!
Two men, the charismatic and charming Phillip, and the cowardly and sheepish Brandon have just strangled their mutual friend, David, and are holding him in their arms. To dispose of the body, they decide on the bold move a placing it in a large trunk in the middle of the living room of their high rise apartment building. They don't have much time to discuss their situation before guests start arriving for their dinner party which had been planned beforehand.
After the guests arrive, the usual small talk and chit chat commences with those attending including David fiance and a former college professor of the men. After the idle conversation starts to bore, it is mentioned how interesting it would be to murder someone and the consequences of doing so. It's no dig deal to dispose of people you don't like is it? Some party-goers are not keen on this conversation and lead it in a new direction eventually focusing on the missing David who has not yet arrived.
Eventually, the unresolved issue of David's absence is brushed aside for the moment and the guests leave to go about their lives. The college professor returns after having been given verbal clues in the former conversations about the nefarious activity of Phillip and David as well as some physical ones. He confronts the duo and David is unable to hold back.
The mystery has been revealed and the men have to deal with the fallout and consequences.
The physical limitation of the amount of film cameras of the day were able to hold was the only drawback for the way Hitchcock managed to shoot this film. There are only 10 total shots within the film ranging from 4 to 10 minutes. The cuts were achieved through normal editing, but also the actors and camera intersecting for brief moments where a momentary black frame would occur continuing the action right after this moment.
I can't even imagine the amount of rehearsal and takes would have been necessary for both the actors and production crew to orchestrate visual and vocal cues and not making mistakes for such a long time for each shot to be completed successfully. The film feels much like a stage production having all the scenes occur mainly in the living room and foyer areas, but that had to be by design.
With no elaborate staging, the audience is left to enjoy the masterful screenplay nonstop and trying to figure out if the two murderers will actually be able to dissuade blame or be confronted with the guilt.
One of many Jimmy Stewart's many Hitchcock collaborations, his performance mostly gets overlooked here in comparison to Vertigo and Rear Window; however, once he arrives at the party it is kind to see him and he delivers another captivating and motivated performance.
In the current days of digital filmmaking and continuous camera shots which can now be processed with computers, it is monumental Hitchcock was able to achieve this feat back in the day with only relentless dedication, but also precise and genius execution.
After the guests arrive, the usual small talk and chit chat commences with those attending including David fiance and a former college professor of the men. After the idle conversation starts to bore, it is mentioned how interesting it would be to murder someone and the consequences of doing so. It's no dig deal to dispose of people you don't like is it? Some party-goers are not keen on this conversation and lead it in a new direction eventually focusing on the missing David who has not yet arrived.
Eventually, the unresolved issue of David's absence is brushed aside for the moment and the guests leave to go about their lives. The college professor returns after having been given verbal clues in the former conversations about the nefarious activity of Phillip and David as well as some physical ones. He confronts the duo and David is unable to hold back.
The mystery has been revealed and the men have to deal with the fallout and consequences.
The physical limitation of the amount of film cameras of the day were able to hold was the only drawback for the way Hitchcock managed to shoot this film. There are only 10 total shots within the film ranging from 4 to 10 minutes. The cuts were achieved through normal editing, but also the actors and camera intersecting for brief moments where a momentary black frame would occur continuing the action right after this moment.
I can't even imagine the amount of rehearsal and takes would have been necessary for both the actors and production crew to orchestrate visual and vocal cues and not making mistakes for such a long time for each shot to be completed successfully. The film feels much like a stage production having all the scenes occur mainly in the living room and foyer areas, but that had to be by design.
With no elaborate staging, the audience is left to enjoy the masterful screenplay nonstop and trying to figure out if the two murderers will actually be able to dissuade blame or be confronted with the guilt.
One of many Jimmy Stewart's many Hitchcock collaborations, his performance mostly gets overlooked here in comparison to Vertigo and Rear Window; however, once he arrives at the party it is kind to see him and he delivers another captivating and motivated performance.
In the current days of digital filmmaking and continuous camera shots which can now be processed with computers, it is monumental Hitchcock was able to achieve this feat back in the day with only relentless dedication, but also precise and genius execution.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Paycheck (2003) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the year 2007, memories can be erased almost as easily as they can be created. With corporate security being of top concern, this technology is in high demand for corporations who hire people to work on sensitive projects.
Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck), is a master of technology, and as such, is in high demand for his ability to reverse engineer technology. Companies hire him to work in private to unlock technological secrets of their competition and upon completion of his work; Jennings has his memories of his work and time at the company removed. This arrangement protects the companies, as they do not have to disclose how they came about the new technologies and the only person who can attest to the source of the work has no memory of it making the claim valid, and keeping him from being able to recoup long-term profits from the company.
Jennings is well paid for his work, and has recently completed a two-month job when his friend Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart), asks Michael to come work on a secret thee-year project for his company. Michael is told only that it deals with optics and that he will be paid with stock options worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
After thinking about the deal, Michael agrees to the job and sets out to complete the task ahead of him.
In what seems like a few minutes to him, Michael comes to in the office of Rethrick and is stunned to learn that he has completed his work and that it was a huge success.
Pleased, Michael sets out to collect his payment but is surprised to learn that he forfeited his stocks four days earlier and sent himself an envelope containing various mundane items such as paperclips, ball bearings, matches, and keys.
Before long, Michael is running for his life and attempting to unravel the mystery of the missing three years in his memory.
Based on the short story by renowned Sci-Fi author Phillip K. Dick, and directed by famed action helmer John Woo, “Paycheck” is a pleasant and entertaining surprise. The previews do not do this film justice, as it is an entertaining and engrossing film with good supporting work by Uma Thurman and Paul Giamatti.
There are a number of twists and turns to the story and some good action and humor along the way. Affleck does solid work as a man desperate to solve the mystery and struggling to cope with his life spun out of control.
While the ending was a bit to Hollywood for me, “Paycheck” is a solid and entertaining film and worth seeing.
Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck), is a master of technology, and as such, is in high demand for his ability to reverse engineer technology. Companies hire him to work in private to unlock technological secrets of their competition and upon completion of his work; Jennings has his memories of his work and time at the company removed. This arrangement protects the companies, as they do not have to disclose how they came about the new technologies and the only person who can attest to the source of the work has no memory of it making the claim valid, and keeping him from being able to recoup long-term profits from the company.
Jennings is well paid for his work, and has recently completed a two-month job when his friend Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart), asks Michael to come work on a secret thee-year project for his company. Michael is told only that it deals with optics and that he will be paid with stock options worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
After thinking about the deal, Michael agrees to the job and sets out to complete the task ahead of him.
In what seems like a few minutes to him, Michael comes to in the office of Rethrick and is stunned to learn that he has completed his work and that it was a huge success.
Pleased, Michael sets out to collect his payment but is surprised to learn that he forfeited his stocks four days earlier and sent himself an envelope containing various mundane items such as paperclips, ball bearings, matches, and keys.
Before long, Michael is running for his life and attempting to unravel the mystery of the missing three years in his memory.
Based on the short story by renowned Sci-Fi author Phillip K. Dick, and directed by famed action helmer John Woo, “Paycheck” is a pleasant and entertaining surprise. The previews do not do this film justice, as it is an entertaining and engrossing film with good supporting work by Uma Thurman and Paul Giamatti.
There are a number of twists and turns to the story and some good action and humor along the way. Affleck does solid work as a man desperate to solve the mystery and struggling to cope with his life spun out of control.
While the ending was a bit to Hollywood for me, “Paycheck” is a solid and entertaining film and worth seeing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The international success of “The Hunger Games” has had fans the world over eagerly awaiting the next film in the series. Since “The Hunger Games” earned record box office, star Jennifer Lawrence has gone on to win an Academy Award and has become a rising star in Hollywood.
“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” picks up nearly a year after the events of the first film, as Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), struggles to deal with the events of what happened to her a year earlier. She and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), put up a brave front for the cameras as a united couple, but in actuality, they live apart in the Victor’s Village of District 12.
Katniss spends much of her time with her mom and sister and has fallen back into a relationship with her childhood friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth).
Shortly before Katniss and Peeta are to embark on a Victory Tour of the districts, Katniss is visited by President Snow (Donald Sutherland), who tells Katniss in no uncertain terms that he is not happy with how she showed him up at the conclusion of the past games and if she values her life as well as that of her loved ones, then she had better make him believe that she and Peeta are still an item.
The tour gets off to a rough start when dissent appears in the assembled crowds, and protestors are dealt with in a brutal fashion by the assembled Peacekeepers. Katniss and Peeta are told by their mentor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), that they can only hope to survive the game and not win, and that they need to follow his advice as well as that of Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), if they want to live a long and happy life.
Depite their best efforts, President Snow is not appeased and to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the games, he orders that the tributes from each district be made up of past winners. The plan to eliminate Katniss once and for all by putting her in the games again with an elite squad of killers in an arena designed by new Gamesmaster Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman).
Forced to make allies to survive the games again, Peeta and Katniss meet charismatic Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin) and crazy Johanna Mason (Jena Malone), as they battle in ta deadly tropical arena to survive.
Despite being a bit slow getting started, the movie follows the book fairly closely and has very strong performances form the leads and supporting cast. The film is visually impressive and the action is fast and intense.
Despite reading the book and knowing the story, I was drawn in and was caught up in the action from the start and was one of the more enjoyable experience at the movies for me in 2013.
So much so, that I am already looking forward to the two-part finale of “Mockingjay” as I cannot wait to see what they come up with next.
http://sknr.net/2013/11/19/the-hunger-games-catching-fire/
“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” picks up nearly a year after the events of the first film, as Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), struggles to deal with the events of what happened to her a year earlier. She and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), put up a brave front for the cameras as a united couple, but in actuality, they live apart in the Victor’s Village of District 12.
Katniss spends much of her time with her mom and sister and has fallen back into a relationship with her childhood friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth).
Shortly before Katniss and Peeta are to embark on a Victory Tour of the districts, Katniss is visited by President Snow (Donald Sutherland), who tells Katniss in no uncertain terms that he is not happy with how she showed him up at the conclusion of the past games and if she values her life as well as that of her loved ones, then she had better make him believe that she and Peeta are still an item.
The tour gets off to a rough start when dissent appears in the assembled crowds, and protestors are dealt with in a brutal fashion by the assembled Peacekeepers. Katniss and Peeta are told by their mentor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), that they can only hope to survive the game and not win, and that they need to follow his advice as well as that of Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), if they want to live a long and happy life.
Depite their best efforts, President Snow is not appeased and to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the games, he orders that the tributes from each district be made up of past winners. The plan to eliminate Katniss once and for all by putting her in the games again with an elite squad of killers in an arena designed by new Gamesmaster Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman).
Forced to make allies to survive the games again, Peeta and Katniss meet charismatic Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin) and crazy Johanna Mason (Jena Malone), as they battle in ta deadly tropical arena to survive.
Despite being a bit slow getting started, the movie follows the book fairly closely and has very strong performances form the leads and supporting cast. The film is visually impressive and the action is fast and intense.
Despite reading the book and knowing the story, I was drawn in and was caught up in the action from the start and was one of the more enjoyable experience at the movies for me in 2013.
So much so, that I am already looking forward to the two-part finale of “Mockingjay” as I cannot wait to see what they come up with next.
http://sknr.net/2013/11/19/the-hunger-games-catching-fire/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Licorice Pizza (2021) in Movies
Mar 9, 2022
Disjointed
The films of Director Paul Thomas Anderson is a bit of an “acquired taste”, moviegoers generally fall into one of 2 camps. (1) those that LOVE what he does (and thinks he is one of the greatest Directors of All Time) and (2) those that don’t.
I thought I fell into the 2nd camp, but upon reviewing his portfolio of work for this review (HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD), I realized that I pretty much liked whatever he had done, but with his last few films (THE MASTER, INHERENT VICE, THE PHANTOM THREAD) I am finding that “PTA” (as his fans call him) is becoming just a little too “artsy” and pretentious for my tastes. He has fallen too in love with his material - and artistic style - to objectively look at a film and realize that it needs to move along at a brisker pace.
Such is the case with his latest film, LICORICE PIZZA.
A memory of his youth, LICORICE PIZZA follows the relationship of a pair of mismatched young adults as they work their way through the early 1970’s in search of themselves and love.
This film is a series of scenes stitched together to tell a story and the problem with it is that it made this film seem disjointed. The central “get together already” love story of the main 2 characters is supposed to be the through-line of the film, but when this through-line breaks (as it often does here) it is detrimental to the flow of the story.
Based, loosely, on the real-life exploits of PTA’s friend, Producer Gary Goetzman, LICORICE PIZZA stars Cooper Hoffman (son of Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as Gary Valentine and Alana Haim (of the Sister Act Musical Group HAIM) as Alana as they have an on-again/off-again friendship that SHOULD BE a romance, but isn’t (kind of like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY). They circumnavigate circa 1973 Los Angeles running into fictionalized portrayals of famous people like Producer Jon Peters (Bradley Cooper) and Film Actor Jack Holden (Sean Penn) an amalgamation of William Holden and Steve McQueen.
The central performances of Hoffman and Haim are competent enough, but never rises to anything more than that, which pulls this film down for one or the other of them is in every scene . The various actors doing extended cameos (like Cooper and Penn) seem to be having fun chewing up the scenery, but they are acting in a completely different style of film than Hoffman and Haim are and our 2 leads don’t stand a chance of standing out compared to these over-the-top performances.
Blame for all of this needs to be laid on Anderson (Oscar Nominated for his Direction in this film). He tried to give us a “slice of life” nostalgia piece like AMERICAN GRAFFITI or ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, but he just doesn’t pull it off.
An Oscar Nominee for Best Picture, LICORICE PIZZA seems to be riding the wave of nostalgia both for the times depicted - and the artist who put this film on the screen - but it just isn’t that good of a film.
Letter Grade B- (for Cooper’s and Penn’s scenes in this)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I thought I fell into the 2nd camp, but upon reviewing his portfolio of work for this review (HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD), I realized that I pretty much liked whatever he had done, but with his last few films (THE MASTER, INHERENT VICE, THE PHANTOM THREAD) I am finding that “PTA” (as his fans call him) is becoming just a little too “artsy” and pretentious for my tastes. He has fallen too in love with his material - and artistic style - to objectively look at a film and realize that it needs to move along at a brisker pace.
Such is the case with his latest film, LICORICE PIZZA.
A memory of his youth, LICORICE PIZZA follows the relationship of a pair of mismatched young adults as they work their way through the early 1970’s in search of themselves and love.
This film is a series of scenes stitched together to tell a story and the problem with it is that it made this film seem disjointed. The central “get together already” love story of the main 2 characters is supposed to be the through-line of the film, but when this through-line breaks (as it often does here) it is detrimental to the flow of the story.
Based, loosely, on the real-life exploits of PTA’s friend, Producer Gary Goetzman, LICORICE PIZZA stars Cooper Hoffman (son of Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as Gary Valentine and Alana Haim (of the Sister Act Musical Group HAIM) as Alana as they have an on-again/off-again friendship that SHOULD BE a romance, but isn’t (kind of like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY). They circumnavigate circa 1973 Los Angeles running into fictionalized portrayals of famous people like Producer Jon Peters (Bradley Cooper) and Film Actor Jack Holden (Sean Penn) an amalgamation of William Holden and Steve McQueen.
The central performances of Hoffman and Haim are competent enough, but never rises to anything more than that, which pulls this film down for one or the other of them is in every scene . The various actors doing extended cameos (like Cooper and Penn) seem to be having fun chewing up the scenery, but they are acting in a completely different style of film than Hoffman and Haim are and our 2 leads don’t stand a chance of standing out compared to these over-the-top performances.
Blame for all of this needs to be laid on Anderson (Oscar Nominated for his Direction in this film). He tried to give us a “slice of life” nostalgia piece like AMERICAN GRAFFITI or ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, but he just doesn’t pull it off.
An Oscar Nominee for Best Picture, LICORICE PIZZA seems to be riding the wave of nostalgia both for the times depicted - and the artist who put this film on the screen - but it just isn’t that good of a film.
Letter Grade B- (for Cooper’s and Penn’s scenes in this)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)