Search
Search results
Sean Baker recommended Used Cars (1980) in Movies (curated)
The Craggus (360 KP) rated Welcome to Marwen (2018) in Movies
Jan 4, 2019
Zemeckis' real life toy story lacks buzz. Welcome To Marwen (2018) Review
Inspired by the true story of Mark Hogancamp who, having suffered a horrific attack, finds solace and support in an elaborate fantasy art installation, Robert Zemeckis sets out to convey a poignant story of the healing power of art and the dangers of the artist becoming too enraptured by the art itself but never once realised that he’s fallen victim to the exact same thing as the protagonist of this always watchable if somewhat disjointed dramedy...
FULL REVIEW: http://bit.ly/CraggusWelcome2Marwen
FULL REVIEW: http://bit.ly/CraggusWelcome2Marwen
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Allied (2016) in Movies
Aug 27, 2017
I wasnt the slightest bit surprised after watching this to find out it was a Robert Zemeckis film. It centres far too much on the romance side and is very lacking in tension, action or suspense. The acting is good but nothing special, and I just found the whole thing a little boring. Could be due to expecting a spy film rather a romantic WWII drama.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Romancing the Stone (1984) in Movies
Apr 10, 2021
All About The Stone
Romancing The Stone- is a classic action-adventure film. It has a great cast and director.
The plot: A dowdy romantic-adventure writer is hurled into a real-life adventure in the Colombian jungle in order to save her sister, who will be killed if a treasure map is not delivered to her captors. She is helped out by a brash mercenary, and together they search for the priceless gem located in the map.
Micheal Douglas and Danny DeVito are the best parts of this film. Also Robert Zemeckis directed it. Its a good film.
The plot: A dowdy romantic-adventure writer is hurled into a real-life adventure in the Colombian jungle in order to save her sister, who will be killed if a treasure map is not delivered to her captors. She is helped out by a brash mercenary, and together they search for the priceless gem located in the map.
Micheal Douglas and Danny DeVito are the best parts of this film. Also Robert Zemeckis directed it. Its a good film.
Nicholas Sparks recommended Forrest Gump (1994) in Movies (curated)
Lee (2222 KP) rated I Like Films in Podcasts
Feb 15, 2019
Enjoyable movie podcast with some great guests
Jonathan Ross has been a familiar face/voice on British television and radio for many years now. His connection to film goes way back to 1999 when he took over hosting duties on the BBC TV show 'Film', reviewing and discussing movies. He is also married to Jane Goldman, writer on numerous movies including Kick-Ass and Kingsman.
I've always been a fan of Jonathan Ross, although it's fair to say that his TV talk show has taken a serious dip in the quality of guests in recent years. In this relatively new podcast, the simply titled 'I Like Films', Jonathan just chats with some of the big names in the movie world - about their careers, about whatever movie they're currently plugging. I've not caught all of the episodes, but the ones I have listened to have always been very interesting and have made this podcast one of only a handful that I'll download the moment an episode becomes available. Robert Zemeckis, Samuel L Jackson, M. Night Shyamalan and Joe Cornish have all featured recently and each episode is just relaxed, informative and really enjoyable.
I've always been a fan of Jonathan Ross, although it's fair to say that his TV talk show has taken a serious dip in the quality of guests in recent years. In this relatively new podcast, the simply titled 'I Like Films', Jonathan just chats with some of the big names in the movie world - about their careers, about whatever movie they're currently plugging. I've not caught all of the episodes, but the ones I have listened to have always been very interesting and have made this podcast one of only a handful that I'll download the moment an episode becomes available. Robert Zemeckis, Samuel L Jackson, M. Night Shyamalan and Joe Cornish have all featured recently and each episode is just relaxed, informative and really enjoyable.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allied (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
There's a great film in here somewhere
Director Robert Zemeckis has some impressive film credits to his name. From cult classics like Back to the Future to last year’s nausea inducing The Walk, there hasn’t been a genre his skills haven’t graced over the last four decades.
His most recent effort, Allied, sees the veteran director tackle the war genre with a film that certainly has its moments, but just how good is this wartime romantic drama?
Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) and Marianne Beauséjour (Marion Cotillard) are World War II operatives who never reveal their true identities. After falling in love during a risky mission, they hope to leave all that double-dealing behind them and start new lives. Instead, suspicion and danger envelop their marriage as both husband and wife become pitted against each other in an escalating, potentially lethal test that has global consequences.
Allied is an assured piece of film-making that tackles the claustrophobia of war incredibly well, but considering the talent at both ends of the camera, it lacks depth, harmony and above all; a plot that remains coherent throughout.
Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard are their usual dependable selves but they lack chemistry until the closing act and as a result, their relationship lacks believability, hampering what is in effect, a love story.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is too often blighted by poorly lit scenes that restrict the talents of Allied’s director. Robert Zemeckis is at his best embarking upon projects that leap off the screen with their vibrancy. Take Back to the Future and Forrest Gump as prime examples of this.
Nevertheless, the film’s final act almost makes up for these shortcomings and turns a plodding romantic drama into a tense, well-acted and above all interesting movie that has a great script; it’s just a shame the first hour lacks any punch.
When it comes to special effects, well, they’re used sparingly, with the upside of this being that they liven up the film nicely. The scenes of London during the blitz are harrowingly beautiful, with one sequence in particular being a standout throughout the entire running time.
Overall, Allied is a decent stab at constructing a meaningful wartime romantic drama, though looking to history should have perhaps sent alarm bells ringing; Pearl Harbour anyone. The story is intriguing most definitely, and it has some nice special effects, but the script it’s crafted around lacks depth until the final hour. It’s probably fair to say that this may slip under the radar when we look back at Robert Zemeckis’s illustrious career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/26/theres-a-great-film-in-here-somewhere-allied-review/
His most recent effort, Allied, sees the veteran director tackle the war genre with a film that certainly has its moments, but just how good is this wartime romantic drama?
Max Vatan (Brad Pitt) and Marianne Beauséjour (Marion Cotillard) are World War II operatives who never reveal their true identities. After falling in love during a risky mission, they hope to leave all that double-dealing behind them and start new lives. Instead, suspicion and danger envelop their marriage as both husband and wife become pitted against each other in an escalating, potentially lethal test that has global consequences.
Allied is an assured piece of film-making that tackles the claustrophobia of war incredibly well, but considering the talent at both ends of the camera, it lacks depth, harmony and above all; a plot that remains coherent throughout.
Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard are their usual dependable selves but they lack chemistry until the closing act and as a result, their relationship lacks believability, hampering what is in effect, a love story.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is too often blighted by poorly lit scenes that restrict the talents of Allied’s director. Robert Zemeckis is at his best embarking upon projects that leap off the screen with their vibrancy. Take Back to the Future and Forrest Gump as prime examples of this.
Nevertheless, the film’s final act almost makes up for these shortcomings and turns a plodding romantic drama into a tense, well-acted and above all interesting movie that has a great script; it’s just a shame the first hour lacks any punch.
When it comes to special effects, well, they’re used sparingly, with the upside of this being that they liven up the film nicely. The scenes of London during the blitz are harrowingly beautiful, with one sequence in particular being a standout throughout the entire running time.
Overall, Allied is a decent stab at constructing a meaningful wartime romantic drama, though looking to history should have perhaps sent alarm bells ringing; Pearl Harbour anyone. The story is intriguing most definitely, and it has some nice special effects, but the script it’s crafted around lacks depth until the final hour. It’s probably fair to say that this may slip under the radar when we look back at Robert Zemeckis’s illustrious career.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/26/theres-a-great-film-in-here-somewhere-allied-review/
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Flight (2012) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
Watchable but very lacking
For a film by Robert Zemeckis, I was expecting something with a lot more heart and a little less predictable.
The problem with this film is that the main character Whip isn’t particularly likeable. Whilst Denzel Washington does his best and does bring some odd moments of likeability, it’s very difficult to connect with this film when Whip is not a very good person. Of course everything turns out the way you’d expect from the outset but this just makes for a bit of a dull watch. Kelly Reilly is sorely underused and her character just seems to have been thrown in a little haphazardly, making little of her and her journey. The visual effects of the crash itself are very good and the soundtrack is great, although it does throw back a little too much to Forrest Gump. The whole film drags and does get a little talky and dull. It also seems to be putting out a strange message about the effects of alcoholism, and yet how a pilot saved a flight whilst he was drunk and high.... very odd.
It’s the type of film you’d watch once and it’s bearable enough to watch to the end, but not one you’d go out of your way to watch again.
The problem with this film is that the main character Whip isn’t particularly likeable. Whilst Denzel Washington does his best and does bring some odd moments of likeability, it’s very difficult to connect with this film when Whip is not a very good person. Of course everything turns out the way you’d expect from the outset but this just makes for a bit of a dull watch. Kelly Reilly is sorely underused and her character just seems to have been thrown in a little haphazardly, making little of her and her journey. The visual effects of the crash itself are very good and the soundtrack is great, although it does throw back a little too much to Forrest Gump. The whole film drags and does get a little talky and dull. It also seems to be putting out a strange message about the effects of alcoholism, and yet how a pilot saved a flight whilst he was drunk and high.... very odd.
It’s the type of film you’d watch once and it’s bearable enough to watch to the end, but not one you’d go out of your way to watch again.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Manifest in TV
Jul 7, 2020
Intriguingly Good
Manifest is a supernatural/drama tv series created by Jeff Rake and executive producer Robert Zemeckis. It is produced by Compari Entertainment, Jeff Rake Productions, Universal Television and Warner Bros. Television and distributed by NBC Universal Television Distributions and Warner Bros. Television Distributions. It stars Melissa Roxburgh, Josh Dallas, Athena Karkanis, J.R. Ramirez and Luna Blaise.
The passengers and crew aboard Montego Air Flight 828 from Jamaica to New York City are shocked to learn that when they experienced a brief period of severe turbulence over five and a half years have passed. The National Security Agency informs them that during the time they were presumed dead. As the passengers realize their lives and loved ones are not the same as they were before, they also begin experiencing strange visions and hearing voices guiding them about events yet to occur.
This show was very intriguing and got me hooked from the first episode. The cast is great and they are all very good actors even the children. It's a decent mix of supernatural mystery with drama, and it kept that way through the first season. It has a very compelling premise and kept me along for the ride but I didn't really like the whole drama part of it too much. Seemed to much like a soap opera to me. Also sometimes it feels like it doesn't do enough to push itself further plot wise and stagnated in certain episodes or through characters actions. Still pretty interesting and worth a watch if it peeked your interest. I give it a 6/10.
The passengers and crew aboard Montego Air Flight 828 from Jamaica to New York City are shocked to learn that when they experienced a brief period of severe turbulence over five and a half years have passed. The National Security Agency informs them that during the time they were presumed dead. As the passengers realize their lives and loved ones are not the same as they were before, they also begin experiencing strange visions and hearing voices guiding them about events yet to occur.
This show was very intriguing and got me hooked from the first episode. The cast is great and they are all very good actors even the children. It's a decent mix of supernatural mystery with drama, and it kept that way through the first season. It has a very compelling premise and kept me along for the ride but I didn't really like the whole drama part of it too much. Seemed to much like a soap opera to me. Also sometimes it feels like it doesn't do enough to push itself further plot wise and stagnated in certain episodes or through characters actions. Still pretty interesting and worth a watch if it peeked your interest. I give it a 6/10.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)