Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated When Marnie Was There (2015) in Movies
Apr 2, 2018
So Much Potential...
When Anna's mom sends her to stay with her aunt for the summer, Anna develops a strong friendship with Marnie, a girl that only Anna seems to know.
Acting: 9
Beginning: 1
Gets off to a bland start at best. I found myself tuning out very quickly. I was looking for a reason to get into it but it never grabbed me.
Characters: 8
You immediately sympathize with Anna. She's an introvert with seemingly no place in the world. To make matters worse, she's prone to panic attacks. From the very beginning, she's a character you wish you could reach out to and protect. Learning her history and the source of her pain is the best part of the film. There were a few other characters that were memorable as well, but none so much as Anna.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Another strong suit of the film. Animations were crisp with strong attention to detail. One scene inside of an abandoned silo particularly stands out. The blend of darkness and destructive winds really place you in the moment and breathe life into a film that was otherwise dull.
Conflict: 4
Genre: 8
The film isn't a favorite by any means and won't hold up against some of my other animated classics that I love. HOWEVER, I appreciate the animation style of the film and I also respected that it attempted to try something different. Even though it was a total miss, I give it the proper credit for daring to be different and take a chance.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
The word "snail" comes to mind here. A huge mistake was made here in merely focusing on the day-to-day of Anna. There wasn't a lot of conflict that dictated the pace. I was waiting for something to happen, ANYTHING. Before I knew it, I was begging for it to be over. As the story progresses there is no real momentum building that can give you a reason to keep your attention solely on the film.
Plot: 0
Unique or not, I had a hard time buying it in its entirety. Had this been a real situation, Anna probably would have been put in a nut house 10 minutes into the film. She was given an awful lot of freedom for someone known to not be adjusted to the world. That didn't make sense to me, neither did the fact that Anna couldn't somehow piece the whole situation together a little bit faster. Maybe the whole idea was that she couldn't piece things together because she didn't want to? I don't know. What I do know is that sometimes even the best intentions can yield some bad results. Perfect example.
Resolution: 10
Best part of the film and, no, I'm not being sarcastic. You essentially find out the mystery behind everything going on and I have to say it's a really nice payoff. Extremely touching, it makes the film 100 times better than what it could have been. I won't give anything away but it resolves around finding your place in life and appreciating who you are. While I loved it, it infuriated me at the same time. WHY COULDN'T THE REST OF THE FILM BE LIKE THIS???
Overall: 57
I have seen a number of films that get off to a great start and fizzle out at the end. When Marnie Was There does the opposite and the feeling it leaves you with ends up being far worse. Had the rest of the film hit home like the ending, this would have been a wonderful classic.
Acting: 9
Beginning: 1
Gets off to a bland start at best. I found myself tuning out very quickly. I was looking for a reason to get into it but it never grabbed me.
Characters: 8
You immediately sympathize with Anna. She's an introvert with seemingly no place in the world. To make matters worse, she's prone to panic attacks. From the very beginning, she's a character you wish you could reach out to and protect. Learning her history and the source of her pain is the best part of the film. There were a few other characters that were memorable as well, but none so much as Anna.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Another strong suit of the film. Animations were crisp with strong attention to detail. One scene inside of an abandoned silo particularly stands out. The blend of darkness and destructive winds really place you in the moment and breathe life into a film that was otherwise dull.
Conflict: 4
Genre: 8
The film isn't a favorite by any means and won't hold up against some of my other animated classics that I love. HOWEVER, I appreciate the animation style of the film and I also respected that it attempted to try something different. Even though it was a total miss, I give it the proper credit for daring to be different and take a chance.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
The word "snail" comes to mind here. A huge mistake was made here in merely focusing on the day-to-day of Anna. There wasn't a lot of conflict that dictated the pace. I was waiting for something to happen, ANYTHING. Before I knew it, I was begging for it to be over. As the story progresses there is no real momentum building that can give you a reason to keep your attention solely on the film.
Plot: 0
Unique or not, I had a hard time buying it in its entirety. Had this been a real situation, Anna probably would have been put in a nut house 10 minutes into the film. She was given an awful lot of freedom for someone known to not be adjusted to the world. That didn't make sense to me, neither did the fact that Anna couldn't somehow piece the whole situation together a little bit faster. Maybe the whole idea was that she couldn't piece things together because she didn't want to? I don't know. What I do know is that sometimes even the best intentions can yield some bad results. Perfect example.
Resolution: 10
Best part of the film and, no, I'm not being sarcastic. You essentially find out the mystery behind everything going on and I have to say it's a really nice payoff. Extremely touching, it makes the film 100 times better than what it could have been. I won't give anything away but it resolves around finding your place in life and appreciating who you are. While I loved it, it infuriated me at the same time. WHY COULDN'T THE REST OF THE FILM BE LIKE THIS???
Overall: 57
I have seen a number of films that get off to a great start and fizzle out at the end. When Marnie Was There does the opposite and the feeling it leaves you with ends up being far worse. Had the rest of the film hit home like the ending, this would have been a wonderful classic.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) in Movies
Jan 15, 2019
Classic
A man goes to Hawaii to forget about his celebrity ex-girlfriend…only to find that she’s staying at the same resort with her new dude.
Acting: 10
Jason Segel plays the perfect broken man in his role as Peter. He carries a pitifulness that’s endearing, a guy easy to root for. From a comedic standpoint, his timing is always right there and it feels extremely natural as if we’re being introduced to a real person. I can only think of a handful of actors that could pull off the role as successfully as Segel. A number of other roles solidified the acting in the movie as well, but Segel carried the movie in my opinion.
Beginning: 10
Forgetting Sarah Marshall grabs your funny bone from jump and sets the tone. The first ten minutes introduces us to Peter as we watch him go about his boring, but hilarious day. Everytime I think about the breakup scene between him and Sarah (Kristen Bell), it still cracks me up. You knew right away the rest of the film was going to be classic.
Characters: 10
The movie sports a solid cast of characters with just enough originality to keep things interesting without going overboard. You’ve got Rachel (Mila Kunis), the badass front desk attendant who gives Peter a reason to enjoy life again. Then there’s the British rockstar and the hotel attendant who is obsessed with him. I could go on as these are just a handful of the crew that make this movie shine.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Others won’t agree, but this is the funniest movie I’ve ever seen. It has everything we want in a comedy. It’s funny without having to go over the top to try. It succeeds with a comical real-life premise that has the right characters surrounding it. Not only does it make you laugh, but it makes you feel as well. But, most importantly, it makes you laugh…A LOT. It hits you with several different types of funny from the characters themselves to the subtle jabs.
Memorability: 10
A classic movie has scenes that stick out in your head for years to come. Forgetting Sarah Marshall has a number of those scenes. When the towel drops. Peter crying naked on the floor then having to defend himself. Dracula musical. The surf scene. I could go on…These are scenes that, by themselves, could make a movie memorable. Together, they made Forgetting Sarah Marshall a classic.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
I know what you’re thinking. What are the chances he goes on vacation and ends up at the exact same resort as his ex at the same exact time? I thought about this a lot and concluded that it could have been completely conceivable that Peter and Sarah had talked about that resort in the past. Alternatively they could have even had plans to go to that resort together during that week and the breakup changed that. Ultimately I decided it didn’t need to completely make sense. It’s a comedy and it’s unique enough for me to not have gotten bogged down in the “how”.
Resolution: 10
Starts just like it ends: Perfectly. It fits both for Peter and Rachel, definitely putting a smile on my face. It works on a lot of levels, touching but still maintaining the level of humor that carried the film to this point.
Overall: 100
A film is always the sum of its parts. Forgetting Sarah Marshall does everything right and then some. From its beautiful cinematics (thank you, Hawaii) to downright perfect pacing, it succeeds on every level. Classic.
Acting: 10
Jason Segel plays the perfect broken man in his role as Peter. He carries a pitifulness that’s endearing, a guy easy to root for. From a comedic standpoint, his timing is always right there and it feels extremely natural as if we’re being introduced to a real person. I can only think of a handful of actors that could pull off the role as successfully as Segel. A number of other roles solidified the acting in the movie as well, but Segel carried the movie in my opinion.
Beginning: 10
Forgetting Sarah Marshall grabs your funny bone from jump and sets the tone. The first ten minutes introduces us to Peter as we watch him go about his boring, but hilarious day. Everytime I think about the breakup scene between him and Sarah (Kristen Bell), it still cracks me up. You knew right away the rest of the film was going to be classic.
Characters: 10
The movie sports a solid cast of characters with just enough originality to keep things interesting without going overboard. You’ve got Rachel (Mila Kunis), the badass front desk attendant who gives Peter a reason to enjoy life again. Then there’s the British rockstar and the hotel attendant who is obsessed with him. I could go on as these are just a handful of the crew that make this movie shine.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Others won’t agree, but this is the funniest movie I’ve ever seen. It has everything we want in a comedy. It’s funny without having to go over the top to try. It succeeds with a comical real-life premise that has the right characters surrounding it. Not only does it make you laugh, but it makes you feel as well. But, most importantly, it makes you laugh…A LOT. It hits you with several different types of funny from the characters themselves to the subtle jabs.
Memorability: 10
A classic movie has scenes that stick out in your head for years to come. Forgetting Sarah Marshall has a number of those scenes. When the towel drops. Peter crying naked on the floor then having to defend himself. Dracula musical. The surf scene. I could go on…These are scenes that, by themselves, could make a movie memorable. Together, they made Forgetting Sarah Marshall a classic.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
I know what you’re thinking. What are the chances he goes on vacation and ends up at the exact same resort as his ex at the same exact time? I thought about this a lot and concluded that it could have been completely conceivable that Peter and Sarah had talked about that resort in the past. Alternatively they could have even had plans to go to that resort together during that week and the breakup changed that. Ultimately I decided it didn’t need to completely make sense. It’s a comedy and it’s unique enough for me to not have gotten bogged down in the “how”.
Resolution: 10
Starts just like it ends: Perfectly. It fits both for Peter and Rachel, definitely putting a smile on my face. It works on a lot of levels, touching but still maintaining the level of humor that carried the film to this point.
Overall: 100
A film is always the sum of its parts. Forgetting Sarah Marshall does everything right and then some. From its beautiful cinematics (thank you, Hawaii) to downright perfect pacing, it succeeds on every level. Classic.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jul 27, 2019)
Overhyped and disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
This review will contain spoilers.... and this is my opinon.
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated You in Books
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
Unique (3 more)
Well thought out
Fast paced
Creepy
Sometimes loses focus (1 more)
Character feels inconsistant
Unique, interesting and stands on it's own
As a book nerd, and fan of crime podcasts and shows, I had to read this book after loving the show version of it.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Honestly, this is one of the better adaptations (as far as book to screen goes). The show stays true enough to the book, but the book retains enough to be worth the read, even if you've watched the show.
The book is presented completely as the internal monologue of Joe Goldburg, a bookstore employee who is unstable, obsessive and violent. It follows his narration(and therefore unreliable account) of meeting Beck, a girl he becomes obsessed with, stalks and eventually forms a relationship with. The book handles this extremely well, presenting Joe ample opportunity to believably narrate every aspect of the story. He manipulates Beck's life, interfering with a current, bad, boyfriend, toxic friendships and Beck herself, to pave way for what he considers the inevitable, Beck and him living happily ever after. However, obviously, when you are a murderous, psycho, stalker, things never go as you imagine.
Unlike the show, the book never lets you forget that Joe is a monster, having it delivered 100% from his perspective lets us see all the questionable interworkings of his mind. Kepnes obviously referenced incel forums while researching, because a lot of what he says is copy pasta incel rhetoric. He is a bad guy. I think where I struggled with this book is that Beck, in her own way, is a terrible, narcissistic, whiney piece of work. She treats everyone terribly and is very "woe is me". Leaving me to not care about her fate. I watched her fall into his grasp and almost rooted for her demise because she was just the worst. I feel the author needed to deliver something redeeming about her to make me care about what he was doing to her. But up until the end, I hated Beck. But, unlike the show, unlike the masses of Joe fans onlines, I hated Joe too in this book. It was scary how so much he did was so easy, and with the incel like thoughts it reminds you that this would be so easy to happen in real life. At times however, his character felt inconsistent, making dumb descisions or having severe thoughts that didn't feel like his mental instability, just inconsistent story telling. So I would argue that the show was smart in removing all the incel thoughts, all the oversexualized, suddenly very agressive thoughts. Because of course someone who thinks like that could do these things. It's almost scarier that the show version doesn't think this way, just fully 100% believes he is doing the right thing. That's scary. I wish the author had employed that more in her book, something to prove to the reader that Joe fully was convinced he was good. But for every time she attempted to write this she undermined it with some obviously bad thought, that never made the reader doubt for a moment. This isn't bad persay, but I think it took a little creepiness from the book and traded it for shock value. The equivalent of showing the monster in a creepy monster flick. Overall it kept my attention, and I immediately ordered the next book (this one ended very different from the show, and ancillary names were used for different character in season 2) so I'm excited to see what she did in book two, as I won't have something to compare it to.
Worth the read, whether you've seen the show or not. Dark, real, and very creepy. It'll make you look at strangers a little differently.
Stylebook Men: Closet Organizer & Assistant
Lifestyle and Productivity
App
Get the most out of your closet - for the price of a latte or a gossip magazine, you could have a...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Sound of Metal (2019) in Movies
Mar 22, 2021
Rooted in Humanity
SOUND OF METAL has a pretty simple “one-line summary”: Heavy Metal Drummer deals with going deaf. But is it the humanity at the center of this film that makes it worthwhile.
Written and Directed by Darius Marder (THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES), SOUND OF METAL tells the tale of Ruben, the drummer of the Heavy Metal Band BLACK GAMMON, who must come to terms with suddenly losing most of his hearing.
Starring Riz Ahmed - in an Oscar nominated turn - SOUND OF METAL follows Ruben’s journey as he comes to terms with the wrinkle that his life has thrown at him and the silence makes him study the non-stillness inside of him.
This all sounds like it could be corny, right? Well…under the guidance of Marder and with a central performance that is grounded and real by Ahmed, it is anything but. This film finds itself in it’s humanity and the very real, personal interactions.
Credit must start with the performance of Ahmed (heretofore known to me as Bodhi Rook in STAR WARS: ROGUE ONE), he is in almost every scene in the film and he must bring a vulnerability to the screen for the audience to care about him - and he accomplishes this in spades. Even when his character makes mistakes (and, trust me, he makes a TON of them), you end up rooting for him to succeed.
Paul Raci was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Joe, the head of the Deaf Community for Addicts that Ruben eventually goes to. His turn is also grounded in the reality - the reality of addicts who have yet another twist in their life thrown at them. Raci has a road-weary look to him and gives off an aura of someone who has seen - and heard - it all, so must take a “tough love” approach. This performance works very well.
Also strong in this film is Olivia Cooke (READY PLAYER ONE) as Lou, Ruben’s girlfriend/lead singer of the Metal Band they are in. She must make some tough decisions in the course of this film - and you end up emotionally engaged in her story as well. Both Ruben and Lou are good people at heart that must make hard choices, you root for both of them to succeed even though, through these choices, pain and suffering and separation must occur.
All of this sounds good, but there has been many a film that falters under the “good intentions” of it’s Director/Screenwriter, but SOUND OF METAL avoids most of the pitfalls of these types of films by not dwelling too much on the pain and suffering of the leads - it’s there, but (as Joe would say), deal with it. I’m a little surprised that Marder did not get a Best Director Oscar nod (the work is that good), but am glad that he did get an Original Screenplay nomination.
And…as you can imagine…a film about Deafness is reliant on the Sound Design to help bring that aspect of Ruben’s experience to the audience - and this film delivers the goods. The sound team was, rightfully, nominated for the Oscar for sound design - and they should easily win - for the sound is another character in this film and that is what, ultimately, makes this film works. The audience is put in Ruben’s shoes and, at times, are unable to hear what others on the screen are saying.
A very satisfying film experience - one that needs to be seen with no distractions (especially sound distractions), so find a quiet time, lower the shades and dive into the world of the SOUND OF METAL.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Darius Marder (THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES), SOUND OF METAL tells the tale of Ruben, the drummer of the Heavy Metal Band BLACK GAMMON, who must come to terms with suddenly losing most of his hearing.
Starring Riz Ahmed - in an Oscar nominated turn - SOUND OF METAL follows Ruben’s journey as he comes to terms with the wrinkle that his life has thrown at him and the silence makes him study the non-stillness inside of him.
This all sounds like it could be corny, right? Well…under the guidance of Marder and with a central performance that is grounded and real by Ahmed, it is anything but. This film finds itself in it’s humanity and the very real, personal interactions.
Credit must start with the performance of Ahmed (heretofore known to me as Bodhi Rook in STAR WARS: ROGUE ONE), he is in almost every scene in the film and he must bring a vulnerability to the screen for the audience to care about him - and he accomplishes this in spades. Even when his character makes mistakes (and, trust me, he makes a TON of them), you end up rooting for him to succeed.
Paul Raci was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Joe, the head of the Deaf Community for Addicts that Ruben eventually goes to. His turn is also grounded in the reality - the reality of addicts who have yet another twist in their life thrown at them. Raci has a road-weary look to him and gives off an aura of someone who has seen - and heard - it all, so must take a “tough love” approach. This performance works very well.
Also strong in this film is Olivia Cooke (READY PLAYER ONE) as Lou, Ruben’s girlfriend/lead singer of the Metal Band they are in. She must make some tough decisions in the course of this film - and you end up emotionally engaged in her story as well. Both Ruben and Lou are good people at heart that must make hard choices, you root for both of them to succeed even though, through these choices, pain and suffering and separation must occur.
All of this sounds good, but there has been many a film that falters under the “good intentions” of it’s Director/Screenwriter, but SOUND OF METAL avoids most of the pitfalls of these types of films by not dwelling too much on the pain and suffering of the leads - it’s there, but (as Joe would say), deal with it. I’m a little surprised that Marder did not get a Best Director Oscar nod (the work is that good), but am glad that he did get an Original Screenplay nomination.
And…as you can imagine…a film about Deafness is reliant on the Sound Design to help bring that aspect of Ruben’s experience to the audience - and this film delivers the goods. The sound team was, rightfully, nominated for the Oscar for sound design - and they should easily win - for the sound is another character in this film and that is what, ultimately, makes this film works. The audience is put in Ruben’s shoes and, at times, are unable to hear what others on the screen are saying.
A very satisfying film experience - one that needs to be seen with no distractions (especially sound distractions), so find a quiet time, lower the shades and dive into the world of the SOUND OF METAL.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When I first heard that The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers would be getting a film adaptation, I was a bit apprehensive. Hollywood has had a bit of trouble converting many of the themes and issues brought up in a variety of shows into films that stay loyal to their respective franchises.
Fans on social media have often expressed their dissatisfaction with films not staying true to the origin stories or their inabil;ity to retain much of the character and charm that endeared them to their fans. Power Rangers does not suffer from this dilemma. As someone who watched the series as it first hit American markets in the 1990s, I was unsure of how this story would transfer onto the big screen.
It wasn’t something that I was too personally invested in. It was a series in which I considered myself to be a casual fan understanding the background, characters, and general direction of the show. I wasn’t prepared for what the film version offered.
This adaptation is near perfect in the way that it is able to create a modern, mature version that incorporates many aspects into weaving their story.
The basics of the film are roughly the same as the show: it is based in Angel Grove, there are five teenagers serving the role of rangers whose goal is to save the world, and all the complexities that come with being a superhero who has a “real life.”
One of the more remarkable issues related to the film is how the writers and director are able to be inclusive with their characters without being condescending to their audiences old and new. We get a glimpse of a team that is more colorful and diverse. Where the original crew showed a group of youths of different races, the film version does not stop with race as demonstrating the variety that exists within our world. The film allows for the inclusion of people on the autism spectrum, as well as, allowing for the inclusion of the LGBT community. The film shows audiences that there are people just like them or people that they know in the superhero realm. It is not limited by race, gender, sexual orientation, or cognitive development.
Power Rangers itself is a fun movie with depth. As the film continued, I tried to look for areas to pick it apart and find those pieces that really detracted from the story. The film has its faults in a simply developing storyline, but that goes with the franchise. It isn’t supposed to be complex or overbearing. The humor ranges from sophomoric to sophisticated. The film is accessible to those who are new to the franchise and those who have been watching since its inception. Additionally, it is a superhero movie it is not insulting to its audience. It demonstrates the difficulties that exist with teen life, presents real problems that they have to deal with in contrast to the fantasy that they are living out as part of this team.
The film is beautifully shot and the CGI is nearly seamless (the film is not overly reliant on it, either). The fighting and action sequences are as much a part of the story as the characters themselves. Power Rangers allows for audiences to be entertained visually and comedically. Additionally, it allows for those of us who have not watched or followed the Power Rangers in a while to be a bit nostalgic and look back to when we ourselves could not get home quickly enough for “Morphin’ Time.” The film is updated, mature, and will have fans young and old beaming with delight.
Fans on social media have often expressed their dissatisfaction with films not staying true to the origin stories or their inabil;ity to retain much of the character and charm that endeared them to their fans. Power Rangers does not suffer from this dilemma. As someone who watched the series as it first hit American markets in the 1990s, I was unsure of how this story would transfer onto the big screen.
It wasn’t something that I was too personally invested in. It was a series in which I considered myself to be a casual fan understanding the background, characters, and general direction of the show. I wasn’t prepared for what the film version offered.
This adaptation is near perfect in the way that it is able to create a modern, mature version that incorporates many aspects into weaving their story.
The basics of the film are roughly the same as the show: it is based in Angel Grove, there are five teenagers serving the role of rangers whose goal is to save the world, and all the complexities that come with being a superhero who has a “real life.”
One of the more remarkable issues related to the film is how the writers and director are able to be inclusive with their characters without being condescending to their audiences old and new. We get a glimpse of a team that is more colorful and diverse. Where the original crew showed a group of youths of different races, the film version does not stop with race as demonstrating the variety that exists within our world. The film allows for the inclusion of people on the autism spectrum, as well as, allowing for the inclusion of the LGBT community. The film shows audiences that there are people just like them or people that they know in the superhero realm. It is not limited by race, gender, sexual orientation, or cognitive development.
Power Rangers itself is a fun movie with depth. As the film continued, I tried to look for areas to pick it apart and find those pieces that really detracted from the story. The film has its faults in a simply developing storyline, but that goes with the franchise. It isn’t supposed to be complex or overbearing. The humor ranges from sophomoric to sophisticated. The film is accessible to those who are new to the franchise and those who have been watching since its inception. Additionally, it is a superhero movie it is not insulting to its audience. It demonstrates the difficulties that exist with teen life, presents real problems that they have to deal with in contrast to the fantasy that they are living out as part of this team.
The film is beautifully shot and the CGI is nearly seamless (the film is not overly reliant on it, either). The fighting and action sequences are as much a part of the story as the characters themselves. Power Rangers allows for audiences to be entertained visually and comedically. Additionally, it allows for those of us who have not watched or followed the Power Rangers in a while to be a bit nostalgic and look back to when we ourselves could not get home quickly enough for “Morphin’ Time.” The film is updated, mature, and will have fans young and old beaming with delight.
London travel guide with offline map and tube metro transit by BeetleTrip
Travel and Navigation
App
London Travel Guide Premium by BeetleTrip is your ultimate oversea travel buddy. Offline GPS locates...
IntelliDrink PRO - Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Calculator
Food & Drink and Health & Fitness
App
IntelliDrink is a sophisticated blood alcohol content (BAC) calculator. It has a simple user...