Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022) in Movies
Nov 18, 2022
Should have been called WAKANDA MOURNS
The passing of Chadwick Boseman from cancer is a unfortunate and sad thing. The makers of the Black Panther series of films for the MCU had a difficult task to accomplish. How do they pay tribute to their lost lead while also leading the series in a new direction? In the end, they ultimately decided to lean INTO (and not away from) his passing - and your emotional involvement in this film will be predicated on how you react to this, for basing an entire SuperHero Movie on grief and longing for a return to the past is not going to make the “feel good movie of the year”.
Directed and Written (with Joe Robert Cole) by Ryan Coogler (he of the first BLACK PANTHER film), BLACK PANTHER:WAKANDA FOREVER starts on a somber note with the off-screen passing of King T’Chala and the grief and celebration of life for him by his Sister Suri (Letitia Wright) and Mother Queen Ramonda (Angela Basset), both of whom are reprising their roles from previous MCU outings. This is all well and good and Basset, especially, shines in these early parts of the film for she is one of the best actresses working today and she rises above the material (and, if I’m honest, the other actors on the screen) to show actual grief and sorrow on the screen. Some are calling for her to be nominated for an Oscar for this role and she would be a deserved recipient of this.
With that out of the way, it’s time for this film to move on to it’s current adventure and the emergence of a new Black Panther. But, Coogler doesn’t do that, he hangs onto the grief, anger and sorrow that is being felt and this mood permeates the entire film - to, ultimately, it’s detriment.
Newcomer (at least to the MCU) Tenoch Huerta (THE FOREVER PURGE) shows up as Namor, the Sub-Mariner, the villain of the piece and he is formidable enough but with the lack of a Black Panther to battle him, it doesn’t seem like a fair fight. Suri, Okoye (Danai Gurira), M’Baku (Winston Duke) and the Dora Milaje (with Florence Kasumba and Michaela Coel being at the forefront - and they are terrific) all are game at the battles and trying to make it to the forefront. But this Wakandan group needed something.
They needed Chadwick Boseman.
While Angela Bassett was the star power the film needed in the first half of the film, Lupita Nyong’o filled that bill in the 2nd half and it was comforting to see her - and her character, Nakia - back in the MCU.
Unfortunately, the character that didn’t really gel was the catalyst to the conflict, Riri Williams (and her MCU SuperHero alter-ego Ironheart) played by Dominique Thorne. This character felt tacked onto this story and her Superhero origins were not really explained, so one will just need to “go with me here” on this one.
Because their is no real emotional center to the battles, they felt like CGI forces fighting CGI forces and the underwater scenery was “fine” but nothing special.
As stated earlier, this film has a dour, mourning mood to it throughout, making it feel more like a morose DC film than a life-affirming, fun MCU film. So just be prepared for that.
BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER should have been titled BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA MOURNS and it would have been a more accurate title.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed and Written (with Joe Robert Cole) by Ryan Coogler (he of the first BLACK PANTHER film), BLACK PANTHER:WAKANDA FOREVER starts on a somber note with the off-screen passing of King T’Chala and the grief and celebration of life for him by his Sister Suri (Letitia Wright) and Mother Queen Ramonda (Angela Basset), both of whom are reprising their roles from previous MCU outings. This is all well and good and Basset, especially, shines in these early parts of the film for she is one of the best actresses working today and she rises above the material (and, if I’m honest, the other actors on the screen) to show actual grief and sorrow on the screen. Some are calling for her to be nominated for an Oscar for this role and she would be a deserved recipient of this.
With that out of the way, it’s time for this film to move on to it’s current adventure and the emergence of a new Black Panther. But, Coogler doesn’t do that, he hangs onto the grief, anger and sorrow that is being felt and this mood permeates the entire film - to, ultimately, it’s detriment.
Newcomer (at least to the MCU) Tenoch Huerta (THE FOREVER PURGE) shows up as Namor, the Sub-Mariner, the villain of the piece and he is formidable enough but with the lack of a Black Panther to battle him, it doesn’t seem like a fair fight. Suri, Okoye (Danai Gurira), M’Baku (Winston Duke) and the Dora Milaje (with Florence Kasumba and Michaela Coel being at the forefront - and they are terrific) all are game at the battles and trying to make it to the forefront. But this Wakandan group needed something.
They needed Chadwick Boseman.
While Angela Bassett was the star power the film needed in the first half of the film, Lupita Nyong’o filled that bill in the 2nd half and it was comforting to see her - and her character, Nakia - back in the MCU.
Unfortunately, the character that didn’t really gel was the catalyst to the conflict, Riri Williams (and her MCU SuperHero alter-ego Ironheart) played by Dominique Thorne. This character felt tacked onto this story and her Superhero origins were not really explained, so one will just need to “go with me here” on this one.
Because their is no real emotional center to the battles, they felt like CGI forces fighting CGI forces and the underwater scenery was “fine” but nothing special.
As stated earlier, this film has a dour, mourning mood to it throughout, making it feel more like a morose DC film than a life-affirming, fun MCU film. So just be prepared for that.
BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER should have been titled BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA MOURNS and it would have been a more accurate title.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Paths of Glory (1957) in Movies
Feb 18, 2024
Early Kubrick Masterpiece
Dore Schary, then head of production of MGM, like Stanley Kubrick’s first film, THE KILLING (1956) so he hired Kubrick to develop film stories from the studios pile of scripts and purchased novels. Finding nothing the he liked, Kubrick remembered reading Humprhey Cobb’s anti-war novel PATHS OF GLORY and suggested that. Schary (like every other studio exec in Hollywood at the time) turned down the opportunity to make this bleak anti-war film.
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When Schary was fired by MGM, Kubrick went to Kirk Douglas (who liked THE KILLING as well and was anxious to work with Kubrick). Using his clout as one of the Major Stars of Hollywood at the time, Douglas got United Artists to agree to make the picture.
Starring Douglas, PATHS OF GLORY tells the WWI tale of a group of soldiers who mutiny when asked to take on a suicide mission to take the impregnable “ANTHILL”.
In this film, Kubrick starts to come into his own as a unique and visionary filmmaker who would insist on take after take until he got the exact shot he was looking for.
The highlight of the film is the 5 minute tracking shot of the troops attacking the Anthill, a tracking shot that films such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and 1917 owe a debt to. It is a masterclass of filmmaking from Kubrick.
As for Douglas – who was also used to having complete control of his films – PATHS OF GLORY was a battle of wills between Kubrick and Douglas with each man coming out on top (at times)…to the betterment of the film.
On the acting front, Douglas has never been better as the Commander of the unit that has the mutiny and who decides to defend the soldiers who are on trial for mutiny and cowardice and who quickly realizes that the trial is a sham and that there is no way for him these soldiers to get a fair trial.
Adolph Menjou (the 1937 version of A STAR IS BORN) and George Macready (GILDA) are appropriately blustery and out-of-touch as the Senior Officers who give (and then defend) their impossible orders. Richard Anderson (Oscar in the SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN) is slimey and slippery as the prosecuting attorney (who knows that the outcome of the trial is a done-deal) while Ralph Meeker (THE DIRTY DOZEN), Joe Turkel (the bartender in THE SHINING) and Timothy Carey (who famously clashed with Kubrick during filming in a calculated attempt to get some publicity for himself and was subsequently fired from the film) are the unfortunate 3 who are put on trial as representatives of their troops while the outstanding performance in this film is fomer child actor Wayne Morris (KID GALAHAD) as drunken Lt. Roget.
Even though this film is about ½ war battle film and ½ a court-room drama, it is the visuals of the folly of war that will stick with the audience long after it is over…and stick with it it does as this film was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry in 1992 and is still listed in IMDB’s TOP 100 Rated films.
Letter Grade A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
May 18, 2018
More of the same - and that's just fine with me
Did you like the first Deadpool film? Was the humor right up your alley? Did you chuckle at the inappropriateness and the pop culture referential humor?
If you did, then you're gonna like DEADPOOL 2 - which pretty much gives your more of the same.
I have to admit that I wasn't laughing uproariously at the first 1/2 hour of Deadpool 2. I thought the filmmakers and Ryan Reynolds were trying just a bit too hard to capture the flavor and flair of the first film and so the jokes - whilst funny - gave me grins, but not guffaws. I was, if I'm honest with myself, beginning to get a little bored with the humor.
And then came the X-FORCE.
If memory serves, it was just about at the 1/2 hour mark when I had my first outloud guffaw in this theater going experience, and then the next one came just minutes later and then there was another one and another one and another one...
Credit for this must go to the writers of both Deadpool films - Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. They, wisely, decided to add the X FORCE into this film to take the burden of the humor of this film off of the back of Reynolds and spreads it out a bit to these characters.
Not that Reynolds needed the help. He is completely comfortable in Deadpool's skin and his natural charm shines through brightly and brings us a character that is one that we like vs. one that annoys us. Speaking of annoying, TJ Miller reprises his role as Deadpool's best pal, Weasel. I have stated earlier that I find Miller annoying. But...to be fair to him...he is not in this film. Maybe that is because he is not around all that much.
Also returning from the first film is Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Deadpool's girlfriend, Leslie Uggams as "Blind Al" and Karan Soni as Dopinder, the cab driver. It is a testament to this film that at the end, I wanted more of each of these characters (well...maybe not Weasel), but - especially - I really wanted to see more of Baccarin.
But I can't really complain because the "Big Bad" in this film, Josh Brolin, scores another triumph as CABLE. I won't give away too much about this character, but Brolin - much like his work as Thanos in INFINITY WAR - brings layers of humanity to his character and Cable is much more than just a "Bad Guy bent on destroying things."
As far as the X-Force. The less I say about them the better, but they are a highlight of this film. Terry Crews, Bill Skarsgard, a "Mystery A List Actor", Rob Delaney and, especially, Zazie Beetz are terrific as the band of misfits that Deadpool brings together to help battle Cable.
Also joining in - from the first film - are "lesser" X-Men Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) and Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapcic). It was good to see them - and to see this film answer the question about "where are the other X-Men"?
Director David Leitch (ATOMIC BLONDE) keeps the action - and comedy - coming at a rip-roaring pace, not lingering on a joke or an action scene too long. Helming a nicely paced and nicely entertaining film.
As with all things Marvel, stay for the first 5 minutes of the credits for the "extra scene", it is well worth it. There is a humorous song at the end of the credits that is, quite frankly not really worth staying for.
I'm going to chalk up my experience with the first 1/2 hour of this film to me needing to get my mind on the right track for the type of movie that this is. Once I did that, I enjoyed myself quite nicely.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you did, then you're gonna like DEADPOOL 2 - which pretty much gives your more of the same.
I have to admit that I wasn't laughing uproariously at the first 1/2 hour of Deadpool 2. I thought the filmmakers and Ryan Reynolds were trying just a bit too hard to capture the flavor and flair of the first film and so the jokes - whilst funny - gave me grins, but not guffaws. I was, if I'm honest with myself, beginning to get a little bored with the humor.
And then came the X-FORCE.
If memory serves, it was just about at the 1/2 hour mark when I had my first outloud guffaw in this theater going experience, and then the next one came just minutes later and then there was another one and another one and another one...
Credit for this must go to the writers of both Deadpool films - Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. They, wisely, decided to add the X FORCE into this film to take the burden of the humor of this film off of the back of Reynolds and spreads it out a bit to these characters.
Not that Reynolds needed the help. He is completely comfortable in Deadpool's skin and his natural charm shines through brightly and brings us a character that is one that we like vs. one that annoys us. Speaking of annoying, TJ Miller reprises his role as Deadpool's best pal, Weasel. I have stated earlier that I find Miller annoying. But...to be fair to him...he is not in this film. Maybe that is because he is not around all that much.
Also returning from the first film is Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Deadpool's girlfriend, Leslie Uggams as "Blind Al" and Karan Soni as Dopinder, the cab driver. It is a testament to this film that at the end, I wanted more of each of these characters (well...maybe not Weasel), but - especially - I really wanted to see more of Baccarin.
But I can't really complain because the "Big Bad" in this film, Josh Brolin, scores another triumph as CABLE. I won't give away too much about this character, but Brolin - much like his work as Thanos in INFINITY WAR - brings layers of humanity to his character and Cable is much more than just a "Bad Guy bent on destroying things."
As far as the X-Force. The less I say about them the better, but they are a highlight of this film. Terry Crews, Bill Skarsgard, a "Mystery A List Actor", Rob Delaney and, especially, Zazie Beetz are terrific as the band of misfits that Deadpool brings together to help battle Cable.
Also joining in - from the first film - are "lesser" X-Men Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) and Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapcic). It was good to see them - and to see this film answer the question about "where are the other X-Men"?
Director David Leitch (ATOMIC BLONDE) keeps the action - and comedy - coming at a rip-roaring pace, not lingering on a joke or an action scene too long. Helming a nicely paced and nicely entertaining film.
As with all things Marvel, stay for the first 5 minutes of the credits for the "extra scene", it is well worth it. There is a humorous song at the end of the credits that is, quite frankly not really worth staying for.
I'm going to chalk up my experience with the first 1/2 hour of this film to me needing to get my mind on the right track for the type of movie that this is. Once I did that, I enjoyed myself quite nicely.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated If You Find Me in Books
Jun 6, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I read about this book from a blog, and I was intrigued. I knew this was one book I had to read. When I found out I had won a copy through a blog competition, I was thrilled! Luckily, I wasn't disappointed with If You Find Me by Emily Murdoch. I absolutely loved the plot twists!!
Carey is a fifteen year old girl who lives in the middle of the woods. Her mother is a meth addict, so she's left Carey alone to fend for herself and to take care of her 6 year old sister Janessa. When Carey and her sister are taken from all they've ever known and thrust into "normal" life, Carey doesn't know if she'll be able to cope. However, the "normal" world will make her question everything she's ever known especially when it comes to her mother.
I just want to say that the title of this book is actually mentioned in the book! Aside from that, the title does suit the book very well. Carey seems lost all throughout the book so the title fits with the theme.
I like the cover for the most part although I would've preferred to see maybe a dirty Carey instead of a normal looking teenage girl. I do enjoy the woods in the background especially since that's where Carey was raised.
As for the world building, I think it was good, but it could've been more believable. The way Carey spoke was a little too polished for what I would imagine a girl who grew up away from civilization to speak. I know that it mentions how Carey taught her and her sister to read and such from books her mother brought home, but still. I also thought Carey started speaking "normally" all too soon. Perhaps that's just me since I've never grown up away from civilization.
The pacing was great in If You find Me. It did start off a bit slow, and I was wondering if I was just in for one big disappointment. I was lucky because the pacing picked up within the next couple of chapters, and I was in for one smooth ride. I couldn't put the book down after that.
The characters were very well developed, and I found myself relating to all of them as best as my experience would let me. I loved Carey and how strong she was after how much she had endured. I thought Janessa was just the sweetest little girl. I could feel how much she loved Carey and how much Carey loved her. Delaney was written as a great mean girl. I found myself wanting to slap her so many times throughout the book!! Ryan was adorable, and I loved how he treated Carey. My favorite character though was Pixie. She was the best friend I wished I had. I absolutely loved her dress sense as well!
As for the dialogue, I loved Carey's internal monologue the most. I loved reading about what she thought and felt about everything. The way the characters interacted with each other was never awkward at all. The whole dialogue ran smoothly. I don't really remember any swearing in this book either.
The only disappointing thing I found was the ending. It left me wanting to know what ever became of Carey after the big reveal. I don't want to go into details due to spoilers, but if you read it, you'll know what I mean.
If You Find Me by Emily Murdoch is an easy and enjoyable read that will leave readers thinking about it long after they've finished reading it. It is a very thought provoking piece of literature.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 13+ who wants to read something stimulating!
If You Find Me by Emily Murdoch gets a 4.5 out of 5.
I read about this book from a blog, and I was intrigued. I knew this was one book I had to read. When I found out I had won a copy through a blog competition, I was thrilled! Luckily, I wasn't disappointed with If You Find Me by Emily Murdoch. I absolutely loved the plot twists!!
Carey is a fifteen year old girl who lives in the middle of the woods. Her mother is a meth addict, so she's left Carey alone to fend for herself and to take care of her 6 year old sister Janessa. When Carey and her sister are taken from all they've ever known and thrust into "normal" life, Carey doesn't know if she'll be able to cope. However, the "normal" world will make her question everything she's ever known especially when it comes to her mother.
I just want to say that the title of this book is actually mentioned in the book! Aside from that, the title does suit the book very well. Carey seems lost all throughout the book so the title fits with the theme.
I like the cover for the most part although I would've preferred to see maybe a dirty Carey instead of a normal looking teenage girl. I do enjoy the woods in the background especially since that's where Carey was raised.
As for the world building, I think it was good, but it could've been more believable. The way Carey spoke was a little too polished for what I would imagine a girl who grew up away from civilization to speak. I know that it mentions how Carey taught her and her sister to read and such from books her mother brought home, but still. I also thought Carey started speaking "normally" all too soon. Perhaps that's just me since I've never grown up away from civilization.
The pacing was great in If You find Me. It did start off a bit slow, and I was wondering if I was just in for one big disappointment. I was lucky because the pacing picked up within the next couple of chapters, and I was in for one smooth ride. I couldn't put the book down after that.
The characters were very well developed, and I found myself relating to all of them as best as my experience would let me. I loved Carey and how strong she was after how much she had endured. I thought Janessa was just the sweetest little girl. I could feel how much she loved Carey and how much Carey loved her. Delaney was written as a great mean girl. I found myself wanting to slap her so many times throughout the book!! Ryan was adorable, and I loved how he treated Carey. My favorite character though was Pixie. She was the best friend I wished I had. I absolutely loved her dress sense as well!
As for the dialogue, I loved Carey's internal monologue the most. I loved reading about what she thought and felt about everything. The way the characters interacted with each other was never awkward at all. The whole dialogue ran smoothly. I don't really remember any swearing in this book either.
The only disappointing thing I found was the ending. It left me wanting to know what ever became of Carey after the big reveal. I don't want to go into details due to spoilers, but if you read it, you'll know what I mean.
If You Find Me by Emily Murdoch is an easy and enjoyable read that will leave readers thinking about it long after they've finished reading it. It is a very thought provoking piece of literature.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 13+ who wants to read something stimulating!
If You Find Me by Emily Murdoch gets a 4.5 out of 5.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
GREAT, Visceral Space Scenes - Boring, Soap-Opera-ish Earth Scenes
Get to the largest screen you can find with the best sound system and check out FIRST MAN. The visceral spectacle of space travel is expertly captured and needs to be seen on the BIG screen while your chair vibrates from the sound. You, the audience, fwill eel like you are in the spaceship with Neil Armstrong on his way to the moon.
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
World War II was an event that changed America’s standing globally and ensured the end of Hitler’s tyranny over Europe. It witnessed an isolated nation enter the war after being attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. The war forced men from all walks of life to step up in defense of their nation and for the freedom of those abroad. Desmond Dawes was one of these men, however, he sought to serve a different function in war. Instead of taking lives, he wanted to save them.
Hacksaw Ridge brings viewers a different perspective of war and the soldiers that were fighting it. Unlike previous films, this one discusses and displays the contributions made by a pacifist, a contentious objector, something that we look at as an anomaly and counter to the personalities and individuals that we are accustomed to seeing in a warfighting capacity. We don’t typically think about those who would resist fighting, other than those who dodged the draft or sought deferments. This film allows for a glimpse into how one man’s principles and faith allow him to resist actively fighting in order to serve as a combat medic in order for his fellow soldiers to return home. The story is harrowing and audiences will find themselves rooting for Private Dawes while questioning how his principles could remain so strong despite all of the obstacles that are put in his way. He wants to serve his country in the war, but does not want to kill in service to it. He is constantly referred to and treated as a coward for his stance. Despite this, he proves himself of heroism that cannot be measured.
The film is beautiful in displaying the various complexities in warfare and individual soldiers’ experiences. We get to see how Dawes is shaped into having the beliefs that guide him in his quest to become a soldier. We see the relationships that he develops in his hometown, his family, and the conflict that erupts between him and other members of his unit. We see that war is more complex than men fighting and killing. There is depth. There is character. These men are not simply numbers on a board or text. There is something about each one of them that played into the success of taking Okinawa as part of the Pacific campaign.
Hacksaw Ridge is not simply a film about one man’s journey to serve his principles and God while struggling against various agents seeking to break his spirit and demean who he is. The battle scenes and brutality rival that of Saving Private Ryan. Audiences seeking to see a traditional “rah rah” war film are going to be surprised with the way that this film will, hopefully, make them think more deeply about the calamity and horror of war. It will hopefully have them think about how far we have come as a people. More importantly, it will make us think differently about the men who served and helped to ensure democracy globally.
The film, overall, is strong with its presentation of information, action, sequences and storytelling. It may surpass previous WWII films with respect to significance and allowing itself to serve as a historical lens to the past. Audiences will be satisfied, shocked, and a bit disgusted with what is on display whether it is how war is conducted or in how we treat others with different beliefs or stances. Hacksaw Ridge may be an instant classic in not only its approach to the Pacific Theater, but in how we look at the soldiers and their contributions to this period.
Hacksaw Ridge brings viewers a different perspective of war and the soldiers that were fighting it. Unlike previous films, this one discusses and displays the contributions made by a pacifist, a contentious objector, something that we look at as an anomaly and counter to the personalities and individuals that we are accustomed to seeing in a warfighting capacity. We don’t typically think about those who would resist fighting, other than those who dodged the draft or sought deferments. This film allows for a glimpse into how one man’s principles and faith allow him to resist actively fighting in order to serve as a combat medic in order for his fellow soldiers to return home. The story is harrowing and audiences will find themselves rooting for Private Dawes while questioning how his principles could remain so strong despite all of the obstacles that are put in his way. He wants to serve his country in the war, but does not want to kill in service to it. He is constantly referred to and treated as a coward for his stance. Despite this, he proves himself of heroism that cannot be measured.
The film is beautiful in displaying the various complexities in warfare and individual soldiers’ experiences. We get to see how Dawes is shaped into having the beliefs that guide him in his quest to become a soldier. We see the relationships that he develops in his hometown, his family, and the conflict that erupts between him and other members of his unit. We see that war is more complex than men fighting and killing. There is depth. There is character. These men are not simply numbers on a board or text. There is something about each one of them that played into the success of taking Okinawa as part of the Pacific campaign.
Hacksaw Ridge is not simply a film about one man’s journey to serve his principles and God while struggling against various agents seeking to break his spirit and demean who he is. The battle scenes and brutality rival that of Saving Private Ryan. Audiences seeking to see a traditional “rah rah” war film are going to be surprised with the way that this film will, hopefully, make them think more deeply about the calamity and horror of war. It will hopefully have them think about how far we have come as a people. More importantly, it will make us think differently about the men who served and helped to ensure democracy globally.
The film, overall, is strong with its presentation of information, action, sequences and storytelling. It may surpass previous WWII films with respect to significance and allowing itself to serve as a historical lens to the past. Audiences will be satisfied, shocked, and a bit disgusted with what is on display whether it is how war is conducted or in how we treat others with different beliefs or stances. Hacksaw Ridge may be an instant classic in not only its approach to the Pacific Theater, but in how we look at the soldiers and their contributions to this period.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Safe House (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In a complicated deadly game of international espionage things are rarely what they appear to be. Take the case of Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds), a young man who, for all intents and purposes, appears to divide his time between his adoring French girlfriend (Nora Arnezeder) and a South African hospital. But if one were to pull back the curtain they would learn that Matt is actually a CIA agent who spends his time watching over a safe house, an assignment of painfully tedious monotony.
In the new action thriller “Safe House”, Reynolds eschews his typical charming, cocky, wisecracking on-screen personas to portray Matt as a mature young man with ambitions both inside and outside of his job. Matt longs to be assigned to a more glamorous position and is hopeful that when his 12 month tour in South Africa is up, a more exciting post awaits him in Paris. It doesn’t hurt that a Paris post will also allow him to be closer to his girlfriend when she returns to Europe in the near future. But his boss David Barlow (Brendan Gleason) isn’t as optimistic.
As his frustrations at the lack of mobility grows, Matt soon finds his quiet world torn asunder by the arrival of Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington). Frost is a former agent who went rogue and is considered an extremely dangerous and high-profile target. Having eluded the CIA for years, he only draws even more suspicion when he surrenders himself to a US consulate in South Africa. The CIA knows they have to act fast to determine what Frost knows, and quickly whisk him away to a safe house for intense interrogation. But the CIA aren’t the only ones who want to know Tobin’s secrets.
Although Matt is highly trained for his job running the safe house, he is very green when it comes to the reality of having to defend his domain against a surprise attack which leaves Tobin and Matt as the only survivors. Forced to flee and with nowhere to turn, Frost tries to convince Matt that they have been set up because someone in the agency does not want Frost to talk. At first skeptical, Matt is forced to step outside of his comfort zones and confront a deadly array of assassins as well as the threat posed by Frost himself and the unseen elements working against them. In a frantic race, Matt must keep Frost and himself alive as they attempt to reach safety and get to the truth behind the deadly game in which they’ve been cast.
Washington and Reynolds worked very well together and had a very natural, unforced chemistry. It was very nice to see Reynolds take on a grittier and more intense role than we have seen from him previously. Washington is a true artist at playing taciturn and wiley, and no one else can portray the pain and shock of being shot as subtly or as convincingly as Washington with just a simple change of expression.
That being said, the film had a number of issues. First and foremost, plot holes that you could drive a truck through and gaps in logic that really require the audience to take some serious leaps of faith. While there was some intense action, it was difficult to appreciate when it looked like the camera was being kicked around the floor during fight scenes, giving the film a very jerky quality. The film also suffered from some pacing issues with parts of the movie dragging as it worked toward an extremely predictable conclusion, one that I figured out very early into the film. There is some fine supporting work in the movie, particularly that of Gleeson and Arnezeder, as well as Ruben Blades as an old cohort of Frost’s, but it is not enough to help the film live up to its intriguing premise.
In the new action thriller “Safe House”, Reynolds eschews his typical charming, cocky, wisecracking on-screen personas to portray Matt as a mature young man with ambitions both inside and outside of his job. Matt longs to be assigned to a more glamorous position and is hopeful that when his 12 month tour in South Africa is up, a more exciting post awaits him in Paris. It doesn’t hurt that a Paris post will also allow him to be closer to his girlfriend when she returns to Europe in the near future. But his boss David Barlow (Brendan Gleason) isn’t as optimistic.
As his frustrations at the lack of mobility grows, Matt soon finds his quiet world torn asunder by the arrival of Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington). Frost is a former agent who went rogue and is considered an extremely dangerous and high-profile target. Having eluded the CIA for years, he only draws even more suspicion when he surrenders himself to a US consulate in South Africa. The CIA knows they have to act fast to determine what Frost knows, and quickly whisk him away to a safe house for intense interrogation. But the CIA aren’t the only ones who want to know Tobin’s secrets.
Although Matt is highly trained for his job running the safe house, he is very green when it comes to the reality of having to defend his domain against a surprise attack which leaves Tobin and Matt as the only survivors. Forced to flee and with nowhere to turn, Frost tries to convince Matt that they have been set up because someone in the agency does not want Frost to talk. At first skeptical, Matt is forced to step outside of his comfort zones and confront a deadly array of assassins as well as the threat posed by Frost himself and the unseen elements working against them. In a frantic race, Matt must keep Frost and himself alive as they attempt to reach safety and get to the truth behind the deadly game in which they’ve been cast.
Washington and Reynolds worked very well together and had a very natural, unforced chemistry. It was very nice to see Reynolds take on a grittier and more intense role than we have seen from him previously. Washington is a true artist at playing taciturn and wiley, and no one else can portray the pain and shock of being shot as subtly or as convincingly as Washington with just a simple change of expression.
That being said, the film had a number of issues. First and foremost, plot holes that you could drive a truck through and gaps in logic that really require the audience to take some serious leaps of faith. While there was some intense action, it was difficult to appreciate when it looked like the camera was being kicked around the floor during fight scenes, giving the film a very jerky quality. The film also suffered from some pacing issues with parts of the movie dragging as it worked toward an extremely predictable conclusion, one that I figured out very early into the film. There is some fine supporting work in the movie, particularly that of Gleeson and Arnezeder, as well as Ruben Blades as an old cohort of Frost’s, but it is not enough to help the film live up to its intriguing premise.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 24, 2020
Lacking in Christmas spirit
Lost at Christmas is a Scottish romantic comedy following two strangers that team up to try and get home for Christmas after finding themselves stranded in the Scottish highlands on Christmas Eve.
As a disclaimer, I am a major cynic when it comes to Christmas films and rarely ever find myself getting into the Christmas spirit, unless it’s in the company of a bonafide Christmas classic (think Home Alone or Muppets Christmas Carol). And I’m afraid to say that Lost at Christmas is definitely not a Christmas classic.
Rob (Kenny Boyle) and Jen (Natalie Clark) have a horrific time on Christmas Eve as their respective relationships come to a rather unexpected end, and find themselves stranded at a train station in the Scottish highlands. One of the few things this film does well is the setting. It is without a doubt a beautiful looking film set in some amazing Scottish scenery and director Ryan Hendrick knows how to showcase the sheer beauty that’s on offer and does this very well. It’s just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t match up this. There are some (thankfully infrequent) attempts at CGI that are very poor, and there are some unusually shot scenes, the most notably being the bathroom scene and from outside of a car windscreen, that don’t really work. In addition to the landscapes, Hendrick seems to love arty closeups on the actors faces and I’m afraid these don’t work either.
The plot is your stereotypical Christmas romantic film – it is the only time of year where strangers would happily travel together through the middle of nowhere. Any other time of year and this would be a horror film. This isn’t the only unfathomable action either, there’s a lot of things that happen that seem completely bizarre and out of place. This may be because this is obviously a home grown low budget offering that doesn’t have the Hollywood finances to make the bizarre seem a lot more believable. In Scotland, two strangers hating each other one minute and liking each other the next seems very out of place. Although the bickering between them in the first half an hour gets very tiresome very quickly, so it may have been for the best that they started liking each other quickly! There are at least a few laughs, although nowhere near what you’d expect from a film categorised as a romantic comedy.
One of the biggest issues with Lost at Christmas is the acting. I hate to be so cruel when it’s obviously a Scottish made film with local talent, but the acting on offer here is quite poor. There are some fairly heartwarming moments that are spoilt by a cliched script and some horrific acting. It seems to vary between overly exaggerated to having no feeling or emotion whatsoever, and it leaves you feeling unconvinced about any of the relationships that evolve. Sylvester McCoy is the only one who does well, as even Clare Grogan is hindered by some ridiculously overlarge glasses that are far too prominent in nearly every scene that she’s in.
Sadly though, Lost at Christmas’s biggest flaw is that for a Christmas film, it doesn’t feel very Christmassy. Despite being set at Christmas, with snow and mentions of Christmas at every opportunity, it is severely lacking in any Christmas spirit or emotions. Christmas films are meant to be overall a rather happy and festive experience, but Lost at Christmas feels rather dull and quite low spirited. And the music, whilst good, only serves to exacerbate the lack of Christmas spirit.
Anyone who likes Christmas films no matter what will likely find Lost at Christmas fairly enjoyable. However to me it was just a bit lost.
As a disclaimer, I am a major cynic when it comes to Christmas films and rarely ever find myself getting into the Christmas spirit, unless it’s in the company of a bonafide Christmas classic (think Home Alone or Muppets Christmas Carol). And I’m afraid to say that Lost at Christmas is definitely not a Christmas classic.
Rob (Kenny Boyle) and Jen (Natalie Clark) have a horrific time on Christmas Eve as their respective relationships come to a rather unexpected end, and find themselves stranded at a train station in the Scottish highlands. One of the few things this film does well is the setting. It is without a doubt a beautiful looking film set in some amazing Scottish scenery and director Ryan Hendrick knows how to showcase the sheer beauty that’s on offer and does this very well. It’s just a shame the rest of the film doesn’t match up this. There are some (thankfully infrequent) attempts at CGI that are very poor, and there are some unusually shot scenes, the most notably being the bathroom scene and from outside of a car windscreen, that don’t really work. In addition to the landscapes, Hendrick seems to love arty closeups on the actors faces and I’m afraid these don’t work either.
The plot is your stereotypical Christmas romantic film – it is the only time of year where strangers would happily travel together through the middle of nowhere. Any other time of year and this would be a horror film. This isn’t the only unfathomable action either, there’s a lot of things that happen that seem completely bizarre and out of place. This may be because this is obviously a home grown low budget offering that doesn’t have the Hollywood finances to make the bizarre seem a lot more believable. In Scotland, two strangers hating each other one minute and liking each other the next seems very out of place. Although the bickering between them in the first half an hour gets very tiresome very quickly, so it may have been for the best that they started liking each other quickly! There are at least a few laughs, although nowhere near what you’d expect from a film categorised as a romantic comedy.
One of the biggest issues with Lost at Christmas is the acting. I hate to be so cruel when it’s obviously a Scottish made film with local talent, but the acting on offer here is quite poor. There are some fairly heartwarming moments that are spoilt by a cliched script and some horrific acting. It seems to vary between overly exaggerated to having no feeling or emotion whatsoever, and it leaves you feeling unconvinced about any of the relationships that evolve. Sylvester McCoy is the only one who does well, as even Clare Grogan is hindered by some ridiculously overlarge glasses that are far too prominent in nearly every scene that she’s in.
Sadly though, Lost at Christmas’s biggest flaw is that for a Christmas film, it doesn’t feel very Christmassy. Despite being set at Christmas, with snow and mentions of Christmas at every opportunity, it is severely lacking in any Christmas spirit or emotions. Christmas films are meant to be overall a rather happy and festive experience, but Lost at Christmas feels rather dull and quite low spirited. And the music, whilst good, only serves to exacerbate the lack of Christmas spirit.
Anyone who likes Christmas films no matter what will likely find Lost at Christmas fairly enjoyable. However to me it was just a bit lost.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 18, 2021 (Updated Mar 19, 2021)
Contains spoilers, click to show
First of all, it's a damn miracle that this even exists at all. A once mythical cut that just seemed like a fabricated idea from Snyder fans who couldn't quite except that Justice League (2017) was awful. It's no secret that the theatrical cut was riddled with issues, and of course, personal tragedy, that resulted in a messy final product. This extended cut aimed to restore Snyder's original vision, and right the wrongs of what came before, and it mostly succeeds.
I still believe that the DCEU should have invested in solo movies for all it's big players before tackling a huge event like this, but there comes a time where I have to accept that that isn't what happened, so I watched this with that in mind, and left my bitterness at the door.
Zack Snyder's Justice League is undeniably a far superior, and vastly different beast to its predecessor. The 4 hour+ runtime gives the narrative plenty of breathing space, and allows the audience to connect with these characters properly. The biggest benefactor of this is Cyborg. A character that was more or less tossed to the side before, is given so much backstory, that he is now an integral part of the films emotional core. The Flash is another character that hugely benefits. Whereas before he was relegated to comedy relief and almost useless in the grand scheme of things, here, he's a young man who grows throughout the story from a joker, into an instrumental part of saving the world. The balance between all of these characters is well done actually - Batman doesn't feel like a waste, Wonder Woman is back to being a raging badass instead of moping over Steve Trevor - All of the League members feel important, and each bring their own strengths. They are portrayed as an effective team.
Main antagonist Steppenwolf is much better realised. He visually looks a hundred times better than whatever the fuck we got back in 2017, and he feels like an actual threat. His evil scheme makes sense this time around whereas before it was an ill explained mess. It feels like the stakes are high.
The set pieces we get are pretty spectacular. The new stuff is a treat to watch, and the familiar stuff has been reworked so well. The action heavy scenes involving Steppenwolf in Themyscira, and when the League first take him on below Striker Island are absolutely thrilling. In the original cut, I'd argue that the scene immediately following Superman's revival was the most exciting in terms of action, but here, it's probably the most lackluster in comparison. It's spaced out nicely, and the screenplay is incredibly engaging. The humour is seldom but funny when it happens, and the more emotional moments are well executed. All of this combined results in a story that never feels like a drag. The four hours flew by pretty quickly, and it's all complimented by a wonderful music score.
In terms of wider DC material, there's a whole wealth of stuff for comic fans to enjoy - Darkseid using his angular beams, the introduction of Ryan Choi aka The Atom, Martian Manhunter, and the extended Knightmare sequence where Batman and The Joker converse about events that have happened in the past. All good stuff that makes the DCEU finally feel like a connected narrative.
Overall, Zack Snyder's Justice League does a pretty damn good job at delivering an event movie that is bittersweet. It's great to see Snyder's original vision realised (although I can understand how it may not have resonated with a wider audience - it's most definitely a movie for fans of DC comics), but it's all a setup for a sequel that will probably never happen, which is a great shame. This is what happens when studios stick their ore in too much!
Final note - it makes me really happy that Alfred addresses Superman as 'Master Kent'.
I still believe that the DCEU should have invested in solo movies for all it's big players before tackling a huge event like this, but there comes a time where I have to accept that that isn't what happened, so I watched this with that in mind, and left my bitterness at the door.
Zack Snyder's Justice League is undeniably a far superior, and vastly different beast to its predecessor. The 4 hour+ runtime gives the narrative plenty of breathing space, and allows the audience to connect with these characters properly. The biggest benefactor of this is Cyborg. A character that was more or less tossed to the side before, is given so much backstory, that he is now an integral part of the films emotional core. The Flash is another character that hugely benefits. Whereas before he was relegated to comedy relief and almost useless in the grand scheme of things, here, he's a young man who grows throughout the story from a joker, into an instrumental part of saving the world. The balance between all of these characters is well done actually - Batman doesn't feel like a waste, Wonder Woman is back to being a raging badass instead of moping over Steve Trevor - All of the League members feel important, and each bring their own strengths. They are portrayed as an effective team.
Main antagonist Steppenwolf is much better realised. He visually looks a hundred times better than whatever the fuck we got back in 2017, and he feels like an actual threat. His evil scheme makes sense this time around whereas before it was an ill explained mess. It feels like the stakes are high.
The set pieces we get are pretty spectacular. The new stuff is a treat to watch, and the familiar stuff has been reworked so well. The action heavy scenes involving Steppenwolf in Themyscira, and when the League first take him on below Striker Island are absolutely thrilling. In the original cut, I'd argue that the scene immediately following Superman's revival was the most exciting in terms of action, but here, it's probably the most lackluster in comparison. It's spaced out nicely, and the screenplay is incredibly engaging. The humour is seldom but funny when it happens, and the more emotional moments are well executed. All of this combined results in a story that never feels like a drag. The four hours flew by pretty quickly, and it's all complimented by a wonderful music score.
In terms of wider DC material, there's a whole wealth of stuff for comic fans to enjoy - Darkseid using his angular beams, the introduction of Ryan Choi aka The Atom, Martian Manhunter, and the extended Knightmare sequence where Batman and The Joker converse about events that have happened in the past. All good stuff that makes the DCEU finally feel like a connected narrative.
Overall, Zack Snyder's Justice League does a pretty damn good job at delivering an event movie that is bittersweet. It's great to see Snyder's original vision realised (although I can understand how it may not have resonated with a wider audience - it's most definitely a movie for fans of DC comics), but it's all a setup for a sequel that will probably never happen, which is a great shame. This is what happens when studios stick their ore in too much!
Final note - it makes me really happy that Alfred addresses Superman as 'Master Kent'.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Promising Young Woman (2020) in Movies
Apr 18, 2021
The wait for this film was agonising, and I honestly don't know how I managed to avoid spoilers when some people on the internet were incapable of using hashtags.
Cassie can't forget the past, and the event that she's living with leaves her holding onto a taste for revenge. She doles out life lessons to those who deserve it as she looks for the way to get the ultimate revenge.
Promising Young Woman is a film I would have loved to have gone into blind. The opening sets up the rest of the film so well, but all I've been able to think is what my reaction would have been without having seen a trailer and knowing what was going to happen... it would have been horrific with a side of evil satisfaction.
Though Carey Mulligan has been in a lot of things, the only thing I can actually say I've seen her in is the Doctor Who episode, Blink... which freaks me out for obvious reasons. Her back catalogue is looking a lot more enticing after seeing her performance here. Cassandra is a thinker and a planner, and while others think she's not achieving her potential, but where she is in life gives her exactly what she needs. Mulligan snaps instantly between the two sides of Cassie's persona with such finesse that when you combine it with the production's editing and cinematography and those moments hold you in suspense for the next.
If you asked me my thoughts on Bo Burnham then I probably would have said I wasn't a fan. But actually, I only remember seeing his stand up, and I was surprised I'd seen films he's been in. Ryan was a great character, he's got that natural charm to him that made a great contrast to the other men we see throughout the film. The development in their relationship is great and follows that sort of "wholesome" and goof expectation of a "successful" dating life... admittedly, not for everyone though.
There was a large recognisable cast, but of the other actors, my main call out would be Alfred Molina. His scene with Carey Mulligan was easily one of my favourites, not just for his performance but the way his character impacts Cassie. In the rest of the cast there were some solid performances, Jennifer Coolidge definitely surprised me as I A) didn't know she was in this and B) have never seen her in a role like this before. But beyond them there were some actor/role combinations that didn't feel right to me.
Something that continually jumped out at me was the score. Great selection of songs, perfectly aligned, nice mix of styles... and that version of Toxic? Masterpiece. I adored every moment of it and I'm listening to the album right now on Spotify.
The feel of the film was a very interesting experience. The divide in Cassie's life is so clear, and I loved Madison's reaction to seeing it. The whole look shows you the drama and thriller side incredibly well and somehow managed to blend them together seamlessly. (Though as an inserted afterthought, I would have liked to have seen this in a murdery version.)
I would really like to talk about the end of the film, but won't for obvious reasons. There's a behind the scenes feature that goes into a specific point, and that attention to detail makes that scene. But in that same instance I knew what was going to happen, and I curse my brain for making it pop into my thoughts.
Promising Young Woman is a very good film, and yet again Emerald Fennell has created something darkly delightful. It embodies something that a lot of people can identify with, not just women, and I have to hope it might enlighten some people as well as entertain.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/promising-young-woman-movie-review.html
Cassie can't forget the past, and the event that she's living with leaves her holding onto a taste for revenge. She doles out life lessons to those who deserve it as she looks for the way to get the ultimate revenge.
Promising Young Woman is a film I would have loved to have gone into blind. The opening sets up the rest of the film so well, but all I've been able to think is what my reaction would have been without having seen a trailer and knowing what was going to happen... it would have been horrific with a side of evil satisfaction.
Though Carey Mulligan has been in a lot of things, the only thing I can actually say I've seen her in is the Doctor Who episode, Blink... which freaks me out for obvious reasons. Her back catalogue is looking a lot more enticing after seeing her performance here. Cassandra is a thinker and a planner, and while others think she's not achieving her potential, but where she is in life gives her exactly what she needs. Mulligan snaps instantly between the two sides of Cassie's persona with such finesse that when you combine it with the production's editing and cinematography and those moments hold you in suspense for the next.
If you asked me my thoughts on Bo Burnham then I probably would have said I wasn't a fan. But actually, I only remember seeing his stand up, and I was surprised I'd seen films he's been in. Ryan was a great character, he's got that natural charm to him that made a great contrast to the other men we see throughout the film. The development in their relationship is great and follows that sort of "wholesome" and goof expectation of a "successful" dating life... admittedly, not for everyone though.
There was a large recognisable cast, but of the other actors, my main call out would be Alfred Molina. His scene with Carey Mulligan was easily one of my favourites, not just for his performance but the way his character impacts Cassie. In the rest of the cast there were some solid performances, Jennifer Coolidge definitely surprised me as I A) didn't know she was in this and B) have never seen her in a role like this before. But beyond them there were some actor/role combinations that didn't feel right to me.
Something that continually jumped out at me was the score. Great selection of songs, perfectly aligned, nice mix of styles... and that version of Toxic? Masterpiece. I adored every moment of it and I'm listening to the album right now on Spotify.
The feel of the film was a very interesting experience. The divide in Cassie's life is so clear, and I loved Madison's reaction to seeing it. The whole look shows you the drama and thriller side incredibly well and somehow managed to blend them together seamlessly. (Though as an inserted afterthought, I would have liked to have seen this in a murdery version.)
I would really like to talk about the end of the film, but won't for obvious reasons. There's a behind the scenes feature that goes into a specific point, and that attention to detail makes that scene. But in that same instance I knew what was going to happen, and I curse my brain for making it pop into my thoughts.
Promising Young Woman is a very good film, and yet again Emerald Fennell has created something darkly delightful. It embodies something that a lot of people can identify with, not just women, and I have to hope it might enlighten some people as well as entertain.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/promising-young-woman-movie-review.html