Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Adventureland (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The summer of 1987 holds some special memories for me as that was the year that I graduated from high school and set about my college studies. In the summer before the start of classes, I had to learn to manage finances, become independent as much as I could and that relationships in the real world are much different than they were in school.
As nice as it would have been to spend that entire summer enjoying the sun and activities and enjoying the abundance of movies, music, and video games, the demands of work and school had to be factored in as I strove to find a balance.
In the new movie “Adventureland” Writer/Director Greg Mottola has given the audience a winning mix of romance and humor that was inspired by his adventures in a Long Island amusement park in 1987.
When recent college graduate James (Jesse Eisenberg), learns that his plans to spend his summer in Europe have fallen through, he is forced to look for work in order to help fund his pending year of graduate studies thanks to his father’s recent demotion.
Despite his degree, James is unable to find work due to his lack of experience and soon finds himself resorting to working as a games operator in the local theme park Adventureland in the Pittsburgh suburbs.
As demeaning as James finds his job, he does strike up friendships with many of his co-workers including an attractive girl named Em (Kristen Stewart) and the older ride mechanic named Mike (Ryan Reynolds).
James is popular at work for his easygoing manner and the fact that he has pot to share makes him go over well with his co-workers who look for an escape from the drudgery of their jobs and the array of park goers who help make their lives difficult.
As the summer unfolds, Em and James become closer which is further complicated by the issues in the lives which stem largely from unhappy home lives and uncertainty over their futures. When other factors come into play, love triangles form which causes James to step out from his comfort zone and take stock of his life, his future, and what truly is important to him.
“Adventureland” is not a comedy nor is it a romance, but rather it is a nostalgic look back at a summer long ago, and how the events that unfolded helped shaped the lives of one man and his friends. There are some funny moments in the film but they are secondary to the stories of growth, pain, and development that mark the final steps from youth into adulthood.
Stewart and Eisenberg have a good chemistry with one another and they portray James and Em with an earnest and honest frailty that makes them come across as real people. They are not the glamorous kids that are so often featured in films with front line wardrobe, plenty of cash, and few if any concerns. They are real people who have issues that they deal with and insecurities about themselves and their futures, and are slow to let their guards down.
The look and sounds of the era are dead on and include an abundance of late 80’s tunes, so much so that a character takes the time to joke about one song being played numerous times a day.
While some may want a bit more closure or humor in the film, it is an enjoyable look at a era gone by and is filled with many moments that viewers of any age will relate to.
As nice as it would have been to spend that entire summer enjoying the sun and activities and enjoying the abundance of movies, music, and video games, the demands of work and school had to be factored in as I strove to find a balance.
In the new movie “Adventureland” Writer/Director Greg Mottola has given the audience a winning mix of romance and humor that was inspired by his adventures in a Long Island amusement park in 1987.
When recent college graduate James (Jesse Eisenberg), learns that his plans to spend his summer in Europe have fallen through, he is forced to look for work in order to help fund his pending year of graduate studies thanks to his father’s recent demotion.
Despite his degree, James is unable to find work due to his lack of experience and soon finds himself resorting to working as a games operator in the local theme park Adventureland in the Pittsburgh suburbs.
As demeaning as James finds his job, he does strike up friendships with many of his co-workers including an attractive girl named Em (Kristen Stewart) and the older ride mechanic named Mike (Ryan Reynolds).
James is popular at work for his easygoing manner and the fact that he has pot to share makes him go over well with his co-workers who look for an escape from the drudgery of their jobs and the array of park goers who help make their lives difficult.
As the summer unfolds, Em and James become closer which is further complicated by the issues in the lives which stem largely from unhappy home lives and uncertainty over their futures. When other factors come into play, love triangles form which causes James to step out from his comfort zone and take stock of his life, his future, and what truly is important to him.
“Adventureland” is not a comedy nor is it a romance, but rather it is a nostalgic look back at a summer long ago, and how the events that unfolded helped shaped the lives of one man and his friends. There are some funny moments in the film but they are secondary to the stories of growth, pain, and development that mark the final steps from youth into adulthood.
Stewart and Eisenberg have a good chemistry with one another and they portray James and Em with an earnest and honest frailty that makes them come across as real people. They are not the glamorous kids that are so often featured in films with front line wardrobe, plenty of cash, and few if any concerns. They are real people who have issues that they deal with and insecurities about themselves and their futures, and are slow to let their guards down.
The look and sounds of the era are dead on and include an abundance of late 80’s tunes, so much so that a character takes the time to joke about one song being played numerous times a day.
While some may want a bit more closure or humor in the film, it is an enjoyable look at a era gone by and is filled with many moments that viewers of any age will relate to.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jan 21, 2019
Good movie with 2 GREAT performances
Writer/Director Adam McKay was known for years as the writing partner/director of Will Ferrell, having written and directed such comedy gems as ANCHORMAN, TALLADEGA NIGHTS and STEP BROTHERS and then, in 2015, he stepped out of Ferrell's shadow - and the comedy world - and delivered the multi-Oscar nominated film THE BIG SHORT, a fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at the financial crisis of the mid-2000's.
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Beyond the Line (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: Beyond the Line starts with the German’s surrendering in World War II, only certain forces of the German’s aren’t going down without a fight, as they shoot down a British squadron with the lone survivor Sydney Baker (Walters) finding himself trapped behind enemy lines, rescued by American William Summers (Berlin) the two team up to try and get to safety against the large number of German soldiers still in the woods.
As the number of German bodies piles up, the more German soldiers go in search for the enemy taking out their own, with the two-man army needing to face impossible odds to survive.
Characters – Sydney Baker is a nervous soldier that is on his final mission, he is involved in a plane crash after being shot down, being the lone survivor, needing to find his way through enemy lines woodland area. He must learn to be a soldier that will fight if he has any chance to survive with the help of William Summers. William Summers is an American soldier that is out for revenge against the Germans that took out his whole unit, he will kill anybody that gets his way and even pushes Sydney to become stronger in the field.
Performances – We only have two actors who get any real screen time, Chris Walters is our British solider that shows us how many soldiers weren’t ready to be in war, while Jackson Berlin does show how prepared a soldier would be to fight for the right thing. Both actors don’t put a foot wrong through the film which is nice to see, even if they don’t get challenged as much as they could be.
Story – The story here follows to soldiers that are trapped behind enemy lines, where they must fight to survive against the Germans looking to hunt down any remaining soldiers left in their land. This is a very simple story when it comes to a war story, we get the basics of surviving done without feeling like we are facing threat that you feel will put them in danger, even though they are in extreme danger. The story is told in the form of a flashback which does give us heavy vibes about how Saving Private Ryan did everything, even if it goes in its own direction. It does show us how two different people will need to work together to make it through the tough situation they find themselves in too.
War – When it comes to the war genre, one of the major factors we see a lot, is just how difficult the situation the soldiers found themselves in and how many odds they needed to overcome as well as how not everybody was in the right condition to be fighting in the first place, this give us all of that.
Settings – The film is set within woodland area, this shows us the struggles the soldiers are facing, while giving them enough cover to make it out of the situation, if they play it correctly.
Scene of the Movie – The barn.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The lack of feeling of peril.
Final Thoughts – This is a strong look at how the war did make things difficult for the soldiers fighting, how they must overcome the odds if they want to survive.
Overall: A strong war survival story.
As the number of German bodies piles up, the more German soldiers go in search for the enemy taking out their own, with the two-man army needing to face impossible odds to survive.
Characters – Sydney Baker is a nervous soldier that is on his final mission, he is involved in a plane crash after being shot down, being the lone survivor, needing to find his way through enemy lines woodland area. He must learn to be a soldier that will fight if he has any chance to survive with the help of William Summers. William Summers is an American soldier that is out for revenge against the Germans that took out his whole unit, he will kill anybody that gets his way and even pushes Sydney to become stronger in the field.
Performances – We only have two actors who get any real screen time, Chris Walters is our British solider that shows us how many soldiers weren’t ready to be in war, while Jackson Berlin does show how prepared a soldier would be to fight for the right thing. Both actors don’t put a foot wrong through the film which is nice to see, even if they don’t get challenged as much as they could be.
Story – The story here follows to soldiers that are trapped behind enemy lines, where they must fight to survive against the Germans looking to hunt down any remaining soldiers left in their land. This is a very simple story when it comes to a war story, we get the basics of surviving done without feeling like we are facing threat that you feel will put them in danger, even though they are in extreme danger. The story is told in the form of a flashback which does give us heavy vibes about how Saving Private Ryan did everything, even if it goes in its own direction. It does show us how two different people will need to work together to make it through the tough situation they find themselves in too.
War – When it comes to the war genre, one of the major factors we see a lot, is just how difficult the situation the soldiers found themselves in and how many odds they needed to overcome as well as how not everybody was in the right condition to be fighting in the first place, this give us all of that.
Settings – The film is set within woodland area, this shows us the struggles the soldiers are facing, while giving them enough cover to make it out of the situation, if they play it correctly.
Scene of the Movie – The barn.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The lack of feeling of peril.
Final Thoughts – This is a strong look at how the war did make things difficult for the soldiers fighting, how they must overcome the odds if they want to survive.
Overall: A strong war survival story.
Darren (1599 KP) rated All Good Things (2010) in Movies
Jan 21, 2020
Verdict: Lacks Focus
Story: All Good Things starts as we see David Marks (Gosling) the son of a property tycoon Sanford (Langella) who meets Katie (Dunst) who eventually becomes his wife, only for the perfect marriage to take a turn when Katie learns David doesn’t want to have kids.
The marriage continues to spiral out of control after Katie gets pregnant, with her disappearance being the reason why David sees his own life come under the spotlight, with people believing her murdered her and he doesn’t help his case.
Thoughts on All Good Things
Characters – David Marks comes from a property tycoon family who could have walked into any job for his father, he decides to go away from this lifestyle, dating a woman before marrying her, which shows a darker side to his nature, or is he just cold, he are never let into see if he is a calculated person or just somebody dealing with the issues bought on from his mother’s suicide. Katie is the woman David marries, she does give up her career and after learning of his own life decision, spirals out of control with drinks and drugs, before disappearing without a trace. Sanford is the father of David who wants him to remain in the wealthy lifestyle following in his footsteps over anything else. We do see many other people who are involved in the lives who have been involved in the lives even if the names have been changed.
Performances – We have a brilliant cast on paper here with Ryan Gosling in the leading role, where he really doesn’t show his skills, Kirsten Dunst does the most with her character, only it seems we don’t get the right outlet for the character, where we also seem to waste Frank Langella too.
Story – The story follows a heir to a successful business that marries a women his family don’t approve of, only for her to go missing, with him being the prime suspect in the disappearance. The problems mount up quickly in this story because we do spend way too much time focusing on the early relationship and not enough time on the investigation to what might have happened, this is clearly the more interesting side of the story that we need to get watching before needing to care that much about their relationship as a hole.
Crime/Mystery/Romance – The crime is more about if, buts or maybes, with no concrete evidence to what might have happened, which shows in the mystery not being solved in the film, while the romance starts strong before showing why it might not have worked out.
Settings – The film uses a couple of settings which shows us the luxury lakeside house the couple have, while showing how they interact with people on a social occasion in the big parties.
Scene of the Movie – Strange new friendship.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough focus on the disappearance investigation.
Final Thoughts -This does feel like a film that gets caught up following the wrong part too easily, we don’t seem to get any clues to what did actually happen, just following the man’s life for large parts both before and after the disappearance.
Overall: Disappointing mystery.
Story: All Good Things starts as we see David Marks (Gosling) the son of a property tycoon Sanford (Langella) who meets Katie (Dunst) who eventually becomes his wife, only for the perfect marriage to take a turn when Katie learns David doesn’t want to have kids.
The marriage continues to spiral out of control after Katie gets pregnant, with her disappearance being the reason why David sees his own life come under the spotlight, with people believing her murdered her and he doesn’t help his case.
Thoughts on All Good Things
Characters – David Marks comes from a property tycoon family who could have walked into any job for his father, he decides to go away from this lifestyle, dating a woman before marrying her, which shows a darker side to his nature, or is he just cold, he are never let into see if he is a calculated person or just somebody dealing with the issues bought on from his mother’s suicide. Katie is the woman David marries, she does give up her career and after learning of his own life decision, spirals out of control with drinks and drugs, before disappearing without a trace. Sanford is the father of David who wants him to remain in the wealthy lifestyle following in his footsteps over anything else. We do see many other people who are involved in the lives who have been involved in the lives even if the names have been changed.
Performances – We have a brilliant cast on paper here with Ryan Gosling in the leading role, where he really doesn’t show his skills, Kirsten Dunst does the most with her character, only it seems we don’t get the right outlet for the character, where we also seem to waste Frank Langella too.
Story – The story follows a heir to a successful business that marries a women his family don’t approve of, only for her to go missing, with him being the prime suspect in the disappearance. The problems mount up quickly in this story because we do spend way too much time focusing on the early relationship and not enough time on the investigation to what might have happened, this is clearly the more interesting side of the story that we need to get watching before needing to care that much about their relationship as a hole.
Crime/Mystery/Romance – The crime is more about if, buts or maybes, with no concrete evidence to what might have happened, which shows in the mystery not being solved in the film, while the romance starts strong before showing why it might not have worked out.
Settings – The film uses a couple of settings which shows us the luxury lakeside house the couple have, while showing how they interact with people on a social occasion in the big parties.
Scene of the Movie – Strange new friendship.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough focus on the disappearance investigation.
Final Thoughts -This does feel like a film that gets caught up following the wrong part too easily, we don’t seem to get any clues to what did actually happen, just following the man’s life for large parts both before and after the disappearance.
Overall: Disappointing mystery.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Ever After (The Faded Trilogy, Book 3) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
One thing I was excited for in Ever After was the final battle between The Chosen Ones and The Forces. Ever After is the sequel to Faded and See No Evil, and is the final book in Chloe Miles' Faded Trilogy. An entire year passes between books 2 and 3.
I have a new book boyfriend. It's Ryan Landon, who we actually get to meet briefly in book 2. He plays a pretty major role in book 3, and is FULL of puns. Unfortunately, it's so sad with what happens to him in the end (how could you? O_o), but I do like how <spoiler>gives Hunter and Savannah a chance for a happy ending.</spoiler>
Throughout Ever After, we get a deeper view on Gwen as a character and how she came to be what she is instead of what we, as readers, know her to currently be. Not only that, but we also get flashbacks regarding Rose's and Oliver's demise as well, which gives them a greater depth as characters. In my opinion, this is more like a book of confessions in a way.
But the final battle between Gwen and Savannah was oh so VERY disappointing. Here's a breakdown of what goes on in that particular part of the book, and I make warning that there may or may not be spoilers lingering about:
1. Party! Everyone's happy and dancing and happy dancing! That goes on for a big part of that scene.
2. Cake time! Savannah makes a wish and blows out candles. Oh, and Gwen enters, pulling off her facade as a Blondie and has Momma Fraser as hostage. Everyone else? OMG!!! I have the perfect comic scene for this. I, as in, this reviewer. Not everyone else.
Here's what goes on afterward: they talk. And talk. And talk. And talk. Throwing threats around, and basically trying to negotiate Momma Fraser safely out. Really, the only thing interesting out of the ENTIRE scuffle was Hunter. He does something that he hasn't done before. But I call it a scuffle because the "battle" lasted for what? 30 seconds tops? Basically a ball of glowy appears in both Gwen's and Savannah's hands, and it grows brighter. And brighter. And brighter. And then they let go at the same time, there's a blinding flash, and a furious roar of NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Then it's over. <i><b>At approximately 67% of the Kindle edition.</i></b>
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dDmenRrorS8/U7tBs38qCiI/AAAAAAAADk0/w3mTLSXlQXk/s1600/I+can't+-+Stitch.gif"; border="0">
You guys have no clue how much I was so disappointed. I was expecting something absolutely spectacular, spellbinding, unforgettable battle finale. But I get something... unsurprising. I'm all, "She's dead? FABULOUS!" *swishes away in party dress* I've seen better final battles.
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vNtPY-9X_d4/U7tBtg7O_WI/AAAAAAAADlA/o664aLvTcPo/s1600/Not+Good+Enough.gif"; border="0" height="180" width="320">
Now, the rest of the book didn't do too much disappointing, but Ever After seems like a very lighthearted read. It's a very happy, cheerful read very much like flying on cloud nine.
I even have a song it's called Happy.
--------------------
Review copy provided by the author for review
original rating: 3.5 out of 5
original review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-ever-after-by-chloe-miles.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
I have a new book boyfriend. It's Ryan Landon, who we actually get to meet briefly in book 2. He plays a pretty major role in book 3, and is FULL of puns. Unfortunately, it's so sad with what happens to him in the end (how could you? O_o), but I do like how <spoiler>gives Hunter and Savannah a chance for a happy ending.</spoiler>
Throughout Ever After, we get a deeper view on Gwen as a character and how she came to be what she is instead of what we, as readers, know her to currently be. Not only that, but we also get flashbacks regarding Rose's and Oliver's demise as well, which gives them a greater depth as characters. In my opinion, this is more like a book of confessions in a way.
But the final battle between Gwen and Savannah was oh so VERY disappointing. Here's a breakdown of what goes on in that particular part of the book, and I make warning that there may or may not be spoilers lingering about:
1. Party! Everyone's happy and dancing and happy dancing! That goes on for a big part of that scene.
2. Cake time! Savannah makes a wish and blows out candles. Oh, and Gwen enters, pulling off her facade as a Blondie and has Momma Fraser as hostage. Everyone else? OMG!!! I have the perfect comic scene for this. I, as in, this reviewer. Not everyone else.
Here's what goes on afterward: they talk. And talk. And talk. And talk. Throwing threats around, and basically trying to negotiate Momma Fraser safely out. Really, the only thing interesting out of the ENTIRE scuffle was Hunter. He does something that he hasn't done before. But I call it a scuffle because the "battle" lasted for what? 30 seconds tops? Basically a ball of glowy appears in both Gwen's and Savannah's hands, and it grows brighter. And brighter. And brighter. And then they let go at the same time, there's a blinding flash, and a furious roar of NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Then it's over. <i><b>At approximately 67% of the Kindle edition.</i></b>
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dDmenRrorS8/U7tBs38qCiI/AAAAAAAADk0/w3mTLSXlQXk/s1600/I+can't+-+Stitch.gif"; border="0">
You guys have no clue how much I was so disappointed. I was expecting something absolutely spectacular, spellbinding, unforgettable battle finale. But I get something... unsurprising. I'm all, "She's dead? FABULOUS!" *swishes away in party dress* I've seen better final battles.
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vNtPY-9X_d4/U7tBtg7O_WI/AAAAAAAADlA/o664aLvTcPo/s1600/Not+Good+Enough.gif"; border="0" height="180" width="320">
Now, the rest of the book didn't do too much disappointing, but Ever After seems like a very lighthearted read. It's a very happy, cheerful read very much like flying on cloud nine.
I even have a song it's called Happy.
--------------------
Review copy provided by the author for review
original rating: 3.5 out of 5
original review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-ever-after-by-chloe-miles.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated The Finest Hours (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The Finest Hours tells the story of four men who, in February of 1952, undertook one of the most daring rescue attempts in the history of the Unites States Coast Guard. A tanker, the SS Pendleton, is caught in a storm off the coast of New England and is ripped in half, leaving more than 30 sailors adrift and sinking. While Bernard Webber (Chris Pine) leads an impossible rescue in a lifeboat designed to hold only 12, his fiancée, Miriam (Holliday Grainger), struggles to come to terms with what it means to be the wife of a man who has to willingly risk his life for others.
Year after year, it proves out. January is just not a good month for cinema. With one hand, the studios campaign for award season glory and with the other, dump their trash. That’s not to say The Finest Hours is total garbage. Even I’m not that cynical to unconditionally condemn something that shines a light on the triumph of the human spirit when faced with insurmountable odds. It’s just that there is only about one-third of a good film here. Anytime the crew of the Pendelton was onscreen, I was captivated. Their struggle for survival and their feats of engineering under incredible pressure make for riveting entertainment and should have been a film unto itself. These scenes unfortunately are interspaced with and, more often than not, forced to take a back seat to paint-by-numbers dialogue, two-dimensional caricatures (both disappointing when you consider the three writers on this film were behind The Fighter) and a shockingly abrasive score during the main U.S. Coast Guard narrative. And yes, it may be called The Finest Hours, but if that’s the title they’re going with a little more effort should have been put into the rescuers, as opposed to those being rescued. Overall, we’re deprived of a sense of urgency, in what is supposed to be a race against time, and an intimacy with any character performed well enough to be worth caring about.
At least this isn’t a complete waste of an all-star cast. I’ll ease off on Chris Pine, tempted as I might be to pick on him. After having fumbled his way through both Captain Kirk and Jack Ryan, doing so now in a flick produced by Disney would feel rather like a cheap shot. Instead it’s fairer to write off the other, usually more dependable leads and praise Casey Affleck, who alone makes The Finest Hours watchable. Ironically, he plays the man who has to keep not only half a ship afloat, but an entire crew together. Between Eric Bana’s overstatement, Ben Foster’s understatement, and a questionable casting choice in Holliday Grainger, Affleck is heads above the rest when it comes to making courage and sentiment ring true.
A regrettable execution notwithstanding, better can and should have been done to honor these distinguished service members and viewers looking for a storytelling standard above the level of your average Hallmark original are advised to look elsewhere. Try, for instance, Oliver Stone’s (not as controversial as we all thought it was going to be) World Trade Center for a better example of how these tales of perseverance and survival are supposed to be done.
Year after year, it proves out. January is just not a good month for cinema. With one hand, the studios campaign for award season glory and with the other, dump their trash. That’s not to say The Finest Hours is total garbage. Even I’m not that cynical to unconditionally condemn something that shines a light on the triumph of the human spirit when faced with insurmountable odds. It’s just that there is only about one-third of a good film here. Anytime the crew of the Pendelton was onscreen, I was captivated. Their struggle for survival and their feats of engineering under incredible pressure make for riveting entertainment and should have been a film unto itself. These scenes unfortunately are interspaced with and, more often than not, forced to take a back seat to paint-by-numbers dialogue, two-dimensional caricatures (both disappointing when you consider the three writers on this film were behind The Fighter) and a shockingly abrasive score during the main U.S. Coast Guard narrative. And yes, it may be called The Finest Hours, but if that’s the title they’re going with a little more effort should have been put into the rescuers, as opposed to those being rescued. Overall, we’re deprived of a sense of urgency, in what is supposed to be a race against time, and an intimacy with any character performed well enough to be worth caring about.
At least this isn’t a complete waste of an all-star cast. I’ll ease off on Chris Pine, tempted as I might be to pick on him. After having fumbled his way through both Captain Kirk and Jack Ryan, doing so now in a flick produced by Disney would feel rather like a cheap shot. Instead it’s fairer to write off the other, usually more dependable leads and praise Casey Affleck, who alone makes The Finest Hours watchable. Ironically, he plays the man who has to keep not only half a ship afloat, but an entire crew together. Between Eric Bana’s overstatement, Ben Foster’s understatement, and a questionable casting choice in Holliday Grainger, Affleck is heads above the rest when it comes to making courage and sentiment ring true.
A regrettable execution notwithstanding, better can and should have been done to honor these distinguished service members and viewers looking for a storytelling standard above the level of your average Hallmark original are advised to look elsewhere. Try, for instance, Oliver Stone’s (not as controversial as we all thought it was going to be) World Trade Center for a better example of how these tales of perseverance and survival are supposed to be done.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Missionary (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Directed by Anthony DiBlasi (whom is no stranger to the horror genre) ‘Missionary’ stars Dawn Olivieri (Heroes, True Blood, House Of Lies, CSI, How I Met Your Mother, Stargate Atlantis, The Vampire Diaries, Entourage, American Hustle) as Katherine, a young single mother recently separated from her husband Ian portrayed by actor Kip Pardue (Remember The Titans, Driven, The Rules Of Attraction, Hostel: Part 3, Mad Men, House) who is struggling to work full time, go to school, and raise their son Kesley (Conner Christie). One afternoon while helping Kelsey practice before tryouts for the junior high football team they are visited buy two Mormon missionaries. One of the two, Elder Kevin Brock (Mitch Ryan) offers to help Kelsey practice thereby ‘bending the rules’ regarding Mormons and sports under the guise of hoping to convert Katherine and Kelsey to the Mormon faith. In reality, Kevin and Katherine become infatuated with each other despite their 10 year age difference and begin an affair which also seriously compromises what Katherine likes to refer to as ‘the rules in the Mormon handbook’. While Katherine sees this as only a ‘temporary’ yet passionate sexual relationship, Kevin becomes more and more obsessed not only with Katherine but becoming a father figure to her young son Kelsey and based upon ‘his interpretation’ of Mormon doctrine believes that Katherine and Kesley are the family he’s been seeking since he joined the Mormon and that they will become his ‘celestial family’. Eventually, Katherine decides that the relationship is not good for either of them and instead choose to reconcile with her husband Ian and attempts to quietly end her relationship with Kevin. Now obsessed and bordering on psychotic, Kevin begins to stalk Katherine and her son determined to make them his ‘family’ at any cost.
For a film that follows the blueprint for the classic slasher/stalker, I have to give it a great deal of credit.
The introduction of the ‘Mormon Component’ was an original idea that to the best of my knowledge no one had dared to utilize in a movie. Probably out of fear that it might anger the leadership and followers of the Mormon faith. This film did an exceptional job though of creating a ‘distance’ between the antagonist and the other characters in the movie who were Mormons so even those who are not familiar with the religion almost instantly know that Kevin is not a legitimate follower of the faith and that his actions are NOT those of an everyday follower of that faith. The casting of Dawn Olivieri, Connor Christie, and Kip Pardue as the Kingsmen family were spot on. They were truly believable as a struggling family that was going through rough times and trying to work through their difficulties only to be thwarted by a most unlikely circumstance in the form of a crazed stalker-type who twists his religious beliefs into justifying his violent and evil actions.
On a scale of 1 to 5 stars, I’d give this film 3 stars. The film may not win any awards with the exception being an excellent job on the part of the actors and crew. The film does follow a blueprint of sorts as mentioned earlier for a slasher/stalker film and combined with original components definitely deserves a place in the scary movie section. Definitely NOT one for the kids as the film contains violence, gore, and some partial nudity. I would include it in a movie marathon on a Friday or Saturday night with a group of friends and some popcorn.
For a film that follows the blueprint for the classic slasher/stalker, I have to give it a great deal of credit.
The introduction of the ‘Mormon Component’ was an original idea that to the best of my knowledge no one had dared to utilize in a movie. Probably out of fear that it might anger the leadership and followers of the Mormon faith. This film did an exceptional job though of creating a ‘distance’ between the antagonist and the other characters in the movie who were Mormons so even those who are not familiar with the religion almost instantly know that Kevin is not a legitimate follower of the faith and that his actions are NOT those of an everyday follower of that faith. The casting of Dawn Olivieri, Connor Christie, and Kip Pardue as the Kingsmen family were spot on. They were truly believable as a struggling family that was going through rough times and trying to work through their difficulties only to be thwarted by a most unlikely circumstance in the form of a crazed stalker-type who twists his religious beliefs into justifying his violent and evil actions.
On a scale of 1 to 5 stars, I’d give this film 3 stars. The film may not win any awards with the exception being an excellent job on the part of the actors and crew. The film does follow a blueprint of sorts as mentioned earlier for a slasher/stalker film and combined with original components definitely deserves a place in the scary movie section. Definitely NOT one for the kids as the film contains violence, gore, and some partial nudity. I would include it in a movie marathon on a Friday or Saturday night with a group of friends and some popcorn.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Big Short (2015) in Movies
Apr 19, 2020
Gets Better On Each Rewatch
Most of you reading this review remember the last time the U.S. had a downturn in it's economy - it was 2008 and the downturn was caused by a bubble that burst in the housing market. Michael Lewis' (author of MONEYBALL) book THE BIG SHORT attempted to explain what happend in lay man's terms. This books was considered "unfilmable" until the most unlikeliest of artists stepped in to make a wonderfully crafted and educational film that was also entertaining.
That person was Adam McKay - up until that time, known as the Director of such Will Ferrell films as STEP BROTHERS and ANCHORMAN.
Set in the timeframe right before - and during - the economic downturn (approx. 2006-2008), THE BIG SHORT follows 4 groups/individuals that begin to see that something is wrong - both with this seemingly "bullet proof" housing market and the institutions/regulations and governance around them.
Christian Bale is outstanding (and was nominated for an Oscar) for his work as Dr. Michael Burry a socially awkward genius who is the first to ferret out that something is wrong and "bets against the market". Bale's portrayal of a non-social (almost) recluse who speaks his mind is engaging and fascinating to watch. It was with this performance that I decided that Bale is, perhaps, the finest actor working today. Also stepping up his game - as a surprise to me - is Ryan Gosling as the narrator of this story. He has the right balance of charm and "smarminess" and often breaks the 4th wall to explain to us what is going on. Also on board, strongly, is Brad Pitt (one of the Producers of this film) as an ex-Wall Street maverick who is pulled back in by the opportunity this impending crash is creating.
But, the surprise to me in this film is the heart-breaking, gut-wrenching turn of Steve Carrell as Wall Street broker Mark Baum who's caustic personality hides some serious scars underneath and who takes the failures of "the system" to protect the people personally. Carrell was nominated for an Oscar the year before in his first major dramatic turn - FOXCATCHER - but I think his work here is stronger, more layered and nuanced and (if there is a hero in this story) had you rooting for this guy throughout the film.
But...none of this would have worked if McKay didn't figure out a way to make the boring-ness and tedium of explaining the housing financial system (tranches, CDO's, default swaps, etc) in such a way that educates and entertains the audience - and find a way he did. By pulling celebrities like Anthony Bordain, Selena Gomez and Margot Robbie in to break the 4th wall and explain extremely dry subject matter in such a way as to make it understandable and enjoyable, he makes this film succeed.
And, succeed it does, as it's 5 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture, Best Director and the aforementioned Best Supporting Actor nomination for Bale - a nomination that I would have been happy had Carrell gotten) would attest to - it did win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay (for McKay and Charles Randolph).
This is a film that gets better for me on each rewatch, for I understand just a little more. If this is your 1st time watch - or your 10th - check out the BIG SHORT, it will be worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
That person was Adam McKay - up until that time, known as the Director of such Will Ferrell films as STEP BROTHERS and ANCHORMAN.
Set in the timeframe right before - and during - the economic downturn (approx. 2006-2008), THE BIG SHORT follows 4 groups/individuals that begin to see that something is wrong - both with this seemingly "bullet proof" housing market and the institutions/regulations and governance around them.
Christian Bale is outstanding (and was nominated for an Oscar) for his work as Dr. Michael Burry a socially awkward genius who is the first to ferret out that something is wrong and "bets against the market". Bale's portrayal of a non-social (almost) recluse who speaks his mind is engaging and fascinating to watch. It was with this performance that I decided that Bale is, perhaps, the finest actor working today. Also stepping up his game - as a surprise to me - is Ryan Gosling as the narrator of this story. He has the right balance of charm and "smarminess" and often breaks the 4th wall to explain to us what is going on. Also on board, strongly, is Brad Pitt (one of the Producers of this film) as an ex-Wall Street maverick who is pulled back in by the opportunity this impending crash is creating.
But, the surprise to me in this film is the heart-breaking, gut-wrenching turn of Steve Carrell as Wall Street broker Mark Baum who's caustic personality hides some serious scars underneath and who takes the failures of "the system" to protect the people personally. Carrell was nominated for an Oscar the year before in his first major dramatic turn - FOXCATCHER - but I think his work here is stronger, more layered and nuanced and (if there is a hero in this story) had you rooting for this guy throughout the film.
But...none of this would have worked if McKay didn't figure out a way to make the boring-ness and tedium of explaining the housing financial system (tranches, CDO's, default swaps, etc) in such a way that educates and entertains the audience - and find a way he did. By pulling celebrities like Anthony Bordain, Selena Gomez and Margot Robbie in to break the 4th wall and explain extremely dry subject matter in such a way as to make it understandable and enjoyable, he makes this film succeed.
And, succeed it does, as it's 5 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture, Best Director and the aforementioned Best Supporting Actor nomination for Bale - a nomination that I would have been happy had Carrell gotten) would attest to - it did win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay (for McKay and Charles Randolph).
This is a film that gets better for me on each rewatch, for I understand just a little more. If this is your 1st time watch - or your 10th - check out the BIG SHORT, it will be worth your time.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Guitarism - Pocket Guitar
Music and Entertainment
App
Over a million downloads. 9,000+ user reviews. 4.5 star avg rating. Get it now! "My guitarist...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Jun 3, 2021
A Good, Maybe Very Good, But Not Great Sequel
Did you enjoy the first A QUIET PLACE film? This horror/thriller from 2018 was unique in that it emphasized the suspense portion of the horror genre while relying, heavily, on sound (or the lack thereof).
The inevitable sequel picks up right where the first film ends, following the survivors of the first film as they make their way to a new “Quiet Place”…and, while not as unique as the first film, certainly holds its own as an entertainment and if you enjoyed the first one, you’ll enjoy this, the 2nd of what is promised to be a Trilogy.
Written and Directed by John Krasinski (who wrote and directed the first one) A QUIET PLACE PART II has an opening sequence (pre-credits) that is as good of an opening sequence as I have seen for quite some time (maybe all the way back to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - it’s that good of an opening sequence). Again, Krasinski infuses sound (and the lack thereof) as he changes the focus of this opening scene from a deaf character (with the lack of sound) to non-deaf characters (with LOTS of sound). It is this juxtaposition of sound (and not sound) that makes an indelible impression. This opening scene is worth the price of admission all by itself.
And…that’s important… for the rest of the film is good, maybe even very good, but not great. Emily Blunt returns and is a formidable screen presence, but since this film focuses as much (if not more) on the 2 kids (Noah Jupe and Millicent Simmonds - more on them later), Blunt is relegated to a co-starring (and maybe a supporting) role, which is too little Emily Blunt in this film for my taste.
The always dependable Cillian Murphy is along for the ride this time around as a fellow survivor who has to work through some cowardice issues. While, at first, it looked like Murphy was putting in a “workmanlike, but unspectacular” performance, by the end of the film it becomes much, much better. A good, maybe even very good, but not great, performance.
As for the kids, Noah Jupe does a good, maybe even very good (but not great) performance, but that might be because Millicent Simmonds as the deaf child (she is a deaf actress herself) is REMARKABLE in her role - and this is needed for a large portion of this film follows her journey - and it is a journey worth watching. I hope this young actress gets a ton more work after these series of movies. I am going to be very interested in seeing her do other things.
Director Krasinski pulls many of the right levers in stringing out the audience - and the tension - throughout the film (though, as is often the case in these types of films, I wanted to yell at the screen a couple of times when characters did stupid things that you knew were gonna end up poorly for them). He, again, relies on suspense (and not gore) in scaring his audience and succeeds much more than he fails in this flim.
All-in-all, a movie that would be a wise choice to bring you back into the Cineplex. The (albeit small) crowd that saw the film in the theater I watched it in had more than 1 time where we all jumped and screamed together - and I realized that I had missed that.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The inevitable sequel picks up right where the first film ends, following the survivors of the first film as they make their way to a new “Quiet Place”…and, while not as unique as the first film, certainly holds its own as an entertainment and if you enjoyed the first one, you’ll enjoy this, the 2nd of what is promised to be a Trilogy.
Written and Directed by John Krasinski (who wrote and directed the first one) A QUIET PLACE PART II has an opening sequence (pre-credits) that is as good of an opening sequence as I have seen for quite some time (maybe all the way back to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - it’s that good of an opening sequence). Again, Krasinski infuses sound (and the lack thereof) as he changes the focus of this opening scene from a deaf character (with the lack of sound) to non-deaf characters (with LOTS of sound). It is this juxtaposition of sound (and not sound) that makes an indelible impression. This opening scene is worth the price of admission all by itself.
And…that’s important… for the rest of the film is good, maybe even very good, but not great. Emily Blunt returns and is a formidable screen presence, but since this film focuses as much (if not more) on the 2 kids (Noah Jupe and Millicent Simmonds - more on them later), Blunt is relegated to a co-starring (and maybe a supporting) role, which is too little Emily Blunt in this film for my taste.
The always dependable Cillian Murphy is along for the ride this time around as a fellow survivor who has to work through some cowardice issues. While, at first, it looked like Murphy was putting in a “workmanlike, but unspectacular” performance, by the end of the film it becomes much, much better. A good, maybe even very good, but not great, performance.
As for the kids, Noah Jupe does a good, maybe even very good (but not great) performance, but that might be because Millicent Simmonds as the deaf child (she is a deaf actress herself) is REMARKABLE in her role - and this is needed for a large portion of this film follows her journey - and it is a journey worth watching. I hope this young actress gets a ton more work after these series of movies. I am going to be very interested in seeing her do other things.
Director Krasinski pulls many of the right levers in stringing out the audience - and the tension - throughout the film (though, as is often the case in these types of films, I wanted to yell at the screen a couple of times when characters did stupid things that you knew were gonna end up poorly for them). He, again, relies on suspense (and not gore) in scaring his audience and succeeds much more than he fails in this flim.
All-in-all, a movie that would be a wise choice to bring you back into the Cineplex. The (albeit small) crowd that saw the film in the theater I watched it in had more than 1 time where we all jumped and screamed together - and I realized that I had missed that.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)