Search
Search results
Kevin Phillipson (9923 KP) rated Charlie's Angels (2019) in Movies
Dec 5, 2019
Elizabeth Banks (3 more)
Easter eggs
Namoi scott
Patrick Stewart
Just come from the cinema I thought I wasn't gonna like the movie but it's not as bad as they say it is did it really need another reboot probably not but I liked it none the less there are some Easter eggs scatted throughout the movie but I won't give them away here Kristen Stewart isnt bad for change never a fan of the twight movies but here she's good but the star for me was Naomi Scott totally badass. anyway decent movie
Robert Englund recommended Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Awix (3310 KP) rated Charlie's Angels (2019) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
Attempt to make the notably leer-tastic exploitation TV show into a piece of weaponised feminism ends up understandably conflicted, but it has bigger problems to worry about. Somebody wants to steal a maguffin with evil potential, Angels want to stop him, much whizzing about in Germany, Istanbul, and so forth.
Elizabeth Banks puts together a generic sub-Mission Impossible action thriller reasonably well, but when the gunfire and revving engines dies away you are just left with the sound of comic banter failing to spark and the occasional unsubtle you-go-girl message. The plot feels very familiar, and the rest doesn't do enough to cover up for this. Mixed work from the cast: Banks herself is working hard, Kristen Stewart proves she genuinely does have star quality, Naomi Scott can probably look forward to a healthy career playing the kooky best friend, and while Ella Balinska can deliver neither a joke nor a line of exposition to save her life, she is about nine feet tall which helps with the fight choreography. Patrick Stewart turns up and twinkles a lot; one presumes CGI has been used to erase the dollar signs in his eyes. Admittedly, I am probably not the target audience for this movie, but even so: too often this feels leaden when it should be light, and treacly when it should froth.
Elizabeth Banks puts together a generic sub-Mission Impossible action thriller reasonably well, but when the gunfire and revving engines dies away you are just left with the sound of comic banter failing to spark and the occasional unsubtle you-go-girl message. The plot feels very familiar, and the rest doesn't do enough to cover up for this. Mixed work from the cast: Banks herself is working hard, Kristen Stewart proves she genuinely does have star quality, Naomi Scott can probably look forward to a healthy career playing the kooky best friend, and while Ella Balinska can deliver neither a joke nor a line of exposition to save her life, she is about nine feet tall which helps with the fight choreography. Patrick Stewart turns up and twinkles a lot; one presumes CGI has been used to erase the dollar signs in his eyes. Admittedly, I am probably not the target audience for this movie, but even so: too often this feels leaden when it should be light, and treacly when it should froth.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Charlie's Angels (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2020
A poor reboot
I had little hopes for this film when it was released at the cinema as the trailer looked awful, and I'm afraid to say the trailer was an accurate representation of the film itself.
The great thing about this film was the cast. This really does have a stellar cast, however the problem is that they're criminally underutilised and let down by an awful screenplay. The only ones who come out of this relatively unscathed are Kristen Stewart (she gets the "fun" role) and Naomi Scott (who still suffers from the cliched new recruit character role). Even the great Patrick Stewart couldn't save this. The action itself is pretty second rate and rather dull, and whilst it fortunately doesn't go OTT on the CGI, the fighting is still a little clunky. And the plot is as ridiculous as you'd expect from a spy film like this, and as predictable.
I also have a bit of an issue with how they're trying to promote gender equality in this. I'm all for girl power, but it's being rammed down your throat here and it's a bit much. Every male character is portrayed to be a complete slime ball and is this really fair? I don't think so. It's a bit old fashioned to have every bloke as a bad guy and I think there are better ways to promote powerful women and equality.
Overall this was an entirely unnecessary reboot of this franchise. Whilst the previous reincarnations with Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu weren't great, they were at least better than this.
The great thing about this film was the cast. This really does have a stellar cast, however the problem is that they're criminally underutilised and let down by an awful screenplay. The only ones who come out of this relatively unscathed are Kristen Stewart (she gets the "fun" role) and Naomi Scott (who still suffers from the cliched new recruit character role). Even the great Patrick Stewart couldn't save this. The action itself is pretty second rate and rather dull, and whilst it fortunately doesn't go OTT on the CGI, the fighting is still a little clunky. And the plot is as ridiculous as you'd expect from a spy film like this, and as predictable.
I also have a bit of an issue with how they're trying to promote gender equality in this. I'm all for girl power, but it's being rammed down your throat here and it's a bit much. Every male character is portrayed to be a complete slime ball and is this really fair? I don't think so. It's a bit old fashioned to have every bloke as a bad guy and I think there are better ways to promote powerful women and equality.
Overall this was an entirely unnecessary reboot of this franchise. Whilst the previous reincarnations with Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu weren't great, they were at least better than this.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Pitching Tents (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
If you have ever taken the time to listen to our Podcast you will have figured out that I am a big fan of Kevin Smith, John Hughes, Cameron Crowe dialogue heavy story driven movies. Throw one of those coming of age end of summer type movies and ill eat them up like a bowl of Shreddies (Other cereals are available I just happen to be eating a bowl as I write this).
Pitching Tents is exactly this type of movie. Its 1984 its the end of the school year and Danny (Micheal Grant) has very little clue what he is going to do with his life past High School, before he has to really worry about any of that he is having one last weekend at Trout Camp with his buddies. However before his weekend can really begin he is cornered by over zealous guidance counselor Mr. Mulligan (Jim Norton) who has pretty much guaranteed Danny a place at a good college. Obviously though things are never that simple because Danny’s dad (Eric Allan Kramer) has gone to the liberty of securing him a job at the local factory.
Torn between his passion for Art and his desire to please his father, Danny has a tough life choice ahead of him. Of course that can wait because a weekend of smoking weed, contemplating life, trying to get laid lies ahead of Danny and his closest friends. You know standard Dazed and Confused territory.
You could argue that there is not really anything original here and you would right, we have seen these movies before and often done better. However I personally felt the Tug of War between Danny, his father and the Counselor is an interesting spin of the teen coming of age drama. Add to this the supporting cast of friends all hugely believable and relate-able with good turns from Disney alumni BooBoo Stewart (Descendants) as Todd and everyone’s favorite child star Jonathan Lipnicki (who is all growed up nowadays) as Scott. Then there is the final third of the movie in which Danny is to make his choice and the movie shows a level of maturity rarely seen in this type of Flick. Props to director Jacob Cooney on this count.
This is a recommend if these movies take your fancy, I know they are not for everyone but personally it ticked a lot of my boxes, and its always good to see what Lipnicki is doing these days. Oh then theres the soundtrack, typical 80s movie soundtrack, but hey who doesnt love that.
Pitching Tents is exactly this type of movie. Its 1984 its the end of the school year and Danny (Micheal Grant) has very little clue what he is going to do with his life past High School, before he has to really worry about any of that he is having one last weekend at Trout Camp with his buddies. However before his weekend can really begin he is cornered by over zealous guidance counselor Mr. Mulligan (Jim Norton) who has pretty much guaranteed Danny a place at a good college. Obviously though things are never that simple because Danny’s dad (Eric Allan Kramer) has gone to the liberty of securing him a job at the local factory.
Torn between his passion for Art and his desire to please his father, Danny has a tough life choice ahead of him. Of course that can wait because a weekend of smoking weed, contemplating life, trying to get laid lies ahead of Danny and his closest friends. You know standard Dazed and Confused territory.
You could argue that there is not really anything original here and you would right, we have seen these movies before and often done better. However I personally felt the Tug of War between Danny, his father and the Counselor is an interesting spin of the teen coming of age drama. Add to this the supporting cast of friends all hugely believable and relate-able with good turns from Disney alumni BooBoo Stewart (Descendants) as Todd and everyone’s favorite child star Jonathan Lipnicki (who is all growed up nowadays) as Scott. Then there is the final third of the movie in which Danny is to make his choice and the movie shows a level of maturity rarely seen in this type of Flick. Props to director Jacob Cooney on this count.
This is a recommend if these movies take your fancy, I know they are not for everyone but personally it ticked a lot of my boxes, and its always good to see what Lipnicki is doing these days. Oh then theres the soundtrack, typical 80s movie soundtrack, but hey who doesnt love that.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“When the man comes around”
At last – a superhero movie with real heart… (and not just the chunks over the knuckle blades!). Logan is a bit of a revelation. I was reluctant to go and see it, since a) I’m a lukewarm X-Men fan at best and b) I hadn’t seen either of the previous two Wolverine spin-off films. (Seeing the other Wolverine films, by the way, is not a pre-requisite for enjoying this one). After a long day at work, my choice was “Logan” or “Kong: Skull Island”. I voted for this one, and I’m so glad I did.
It’s now 2029. Hugh Jackman plays Wolverine, but this is not a Wolverine we have seen before. This is an aged and deteriorating superhero: his self-healing powers are waning; a limp is developing; and his fighting prowess (although still legendary) doesn’t show the stamina it once did. This is a Wolverine that is also an unlikely carer, looking after a mentally degenerating Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), now 90 years old and finding it increasingly difficult to keep his devastating mental superpowers under control. This is a Wolverine trying desperately to avoid the limelight, working diligently as a limo-driver in an effort to save money for the dream of buying a ‘Sunseeker’ and sailing off with Xavier into the sunset, gaining true anonymity among the boating fraternity.
Life doesn’t play ball though. A brutal encounter with a gang on the highway outside El Paso advertises Wolverine’s presence and brings him into contact with a strange eleven-year-old girl (Dafne Keen) with impressive powers of her own. The girl is being pursued by a “reiver” (Boyd Holbrook, “Run all Night”) supported by a small private army. Against his will, Wolverine is forced into a memorable road trip with the old man and the young girl that leaves a trail of bloodied bodies behind them.
For, be warned, this is an *extremely* violent film, with much dismemberment and ‘blade work’ that must have kept the prosthetics department busy for months. It’s also quite emotionally brutal, particularly within a central segment set in a “Field of Dreams” style idyll (featuring Eriq La Salle from E.R.) that you know in your gut is not going to end with “Goodnight John Boy” pleasantries.
The well-choreographed and frenetic action within the road-trip segment reminded me at times of the harsh cinematography and dynamics of “Mad Max: Fury Road” – a great compliment.
But the film also takes time to pause, in uncharacteristic Marvel-ways, for character development and genuinely intelligent dialogue. These interludes allow the acting to shine, and it is first-rate. We all know (from “Les Miserables” for instance) that Hugh Jackman can act, but this is arguably his best-ever performance: a meaty role (he actually has two in the film) that affords him tremendous range and emotion. At one point towards the end of the film I thought “this has genuine Oscar show-reel potential”. He will surely never get nominated – a Marvel film? Get Away! But wouldn’t it make a refreshing change if he was? Recognizing good acting, regardless of the context.
Patrick Stewart is a great Shakespearean actor, and here he also gets given full rein to impress as he hasn’t had chance to in most of his movie roles to date.
Claiming the prize so far this year for the most unusual casting decision is Stephen Merchant as the albino helper Caliban, unrecognizable to me at first until he had some lengthy dialogue to flex his Bristol accent on! A non-comic and dramatic role, Merchant does really well with it.
Finally, I can’t leave the acting without doffing my cap to young Dafne Keen whose mesmerising feral stare would probably put the fear of God into every parent of a pre-teen girl! Even though she has only a handful of lines, this is an impressive feature film debut. I predict we will see much more of this young lady.
Less convincing to me was Richard E Grant as the evil mastermind behind the scheme, who never quite seemed nasty enough to me to be believable: in one scene he could be calling back a dog that’s run off down the beach rather than desperately trying to gain control of an out of control situation!
Directed by James Mangold (“Walk the Line”, “Knight and Day”), who co-wrote the piece with Scott Frank (“Minority Report”) and Michael Green (“Green Lantern”… yes, really!), this was a gritty and well constructed movie. If you can stomach the gore and the body count (I would see it as very lucky to have got away with its UK ’15’ certificate) this is a rollercoaster of a movie that is recommended.
By the way, to save you from sitting through the end titles (although you do get a Johnny Cash classic to enjoy) there is no “monkey” at the end of this Marvel film. (I’m no stranger to still be sitting there as the lights come up… but many of the crowd that were left looked vaguely embarrassed!)
In terms of my rating, I’m not a fanboy for Marvel or DC properties, but here I award a rating I have only previously bestowed on two superhero films before: the quirky “Ant Man” and the anarchic “Deadpool“….
It’s now 2029. Hugh Jackman plays Wolverine, but this is not a Wolverine we have seen before. This is an aged and deteriorating superhero: his self-healing powers are waning; a limp is developing; and his fighting prowess (although still legendary) doesn’t show the stamina it once did. This is a Wolverine that is also an unlikely carer, looking after a mentally degenerating Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), now 90 years old and finding it increasingly difficult to keep his devastating mental superpowers under control. This is a Wolverine trying desperately to avoid the limelight, working diligently as a limo-driver in an effort to save money for the dream of buying a ‘Sunseeker’ and sailing off with Xavier into the sunset, gaining true anonymity among the boating fraternity.
Life doesn’t play ball though. A brutal encounter with a gang on the highway outside El Paso advertises Wolverine’s presence and brings him into contact with a strange eleven-year-old girl (Dafne Keen) with impressive powers of her own. The girl is being pursued by a “reiver” (Boyd Holbrook, “Run all Night”) supported by a small private army. Against his will, Wolverine is forced into a memorable road trip with the old man and the young girl that leaves a trail of bloodied bodies behind them.
For, be warned, this is an *extremely* violent film, with much dismemberment and ‘blade work’ that must have kept the prosthetics department busy for months. It’s also quite emotionally brutal, particularly within a central segment set in a “Field of Dreams” style idyll (featuring Eriq La Salle from E.R.) that you know in your gut is not going to end with “Goodnight John Boy” pleasantries.
The well-choreographed and frenetic action within the road-trip segment reminded me at times of the harsh cinematography and dynamics of “Mad Max: Fury Road” – a great compliment.
But the film also takes time to pause, in uncharacteristic Marvel-ways, for character development and genuinely intelligent dialogue. These interludes allow the acting to shine, and it is first-rate. We all know (from “Les Miserables” for instance) that Hugh Jackman can act, but this is arguably his best-ever performance: a meaty role (he actually has two in the film) that affords him tremendous range and emotion. At one point towards the end of the film I thought “this has genuine Oscar show-reel potential”. He will surely never get nominated – a Marvel film? Get Away! But wouldn’t it make a refreshing change if he was? Recognizing good acting, regardless of the context.
Patrick Stewart is a great Shakespearean actor, and here he also gets given full rein to impress as he hasn’t had chance to in most of his movie roles to date.
Claiming the prize so far this year for the most unusual casting decision is Stephen Merchant as the albino helper Caliban, unrecognizable to me at first until he had some lengthy dialogue to flex his Bristol accent on! A non-comic and dramatic role, Merchant does really well with it.
Finally, I can’t leave the acting without doffing my cap to young Dafne Keen whose mesmerising feral stare would probably put the fear of God into every parent of a pre-teen girl! Even though she has only a handful of lines, this is an impressive feature film debut. I predict we will see much more of this young lady.
Less convincing to me was Richard E Grant as the evil mastermind behind the scheme, who never quite seemed nasty enough to me to be believable: in one scene he could be calling back a dog that’s run off down the beach rather than desperately trying to gain control of an out of control situation!
Directed by James Mangold (“Walk the Line”, “Knight and Day”), who co-wrote the piece with Scott Frank (“Minority Report”) and Michael Green (“Green Lantern”… yes, really!), this was a gritty and well constructed movie. If you can stomach the gore and the body count (I would see it as very lucky to have got away with its UK ’15’ certificate) this is a rollercoaster of a movie that is recommended.
By the way, to save you from sitting through the end titles (although you do get a Johnny Cash classic to enjoy) there is no “monkey” at the end of this Marvel film. (I’m no stranger to still be sitting there as the lights come up… but many of the crowd that were left looked vaguely embarrassed!)
In terms of my rating, I’m not a fanboy for Marvel or DC properties, but here I award a rating I have only previously bestowed on two superhero films before: the quirky “Ant Man” and the anarchic “Deadpool“….