Search

Search only in certain items:

40x40

Joel Schumacher recommended Blade Runner (1982) in Movies (curated)

 
Blade Runner (1982)
Blade Runner (1982)
1982 | Sci-Fi
8.5 (75 Ratings)
Movie Favorite

"Speaking of that, we must go to Blade Runner — true visual genius, and also in a class never matched. I saw it the first show, the first day, with a bunch of my friends. I can remember that because it was at the Cinerama dome in Hollywood, and it was on that huge screen with that incredible sound system. I still remember that great Vangelis music. But that opening — it’s embedded in my mind, that opening, with that scape of the city and its almost Mayan-like temple formation and those fires out of nowhere shooting up. Plus, Sean Young — that interview [with Harrison Ford’s Deckard] is unbelievable. I got a lovely letter from her last year. I worked with her on Cousins. Amazingly, amazingly beautiful. And of course it has the great Harrison Ford, and Edward James Olmos, and we could just go on and on with that movie. Daryl Hannah is great in it. And the doll guy, William Sanderson, who I got to work with on The Client — he played one of Tommy Lee Jones’ posse. One of the great things about my job is that I’ve been able to cast, sometimes, my favorite people."

Source
  
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
2014 | Action, Sci-Fi
2014 was a damn fine year for Marvel Studios in terms of quality, their two outputs being The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy. They're just a big double-whammy example of how comic book movies can get things right.

GOTG was a very niche property before hand. A bunch of little know Marvel characters galavanting around space, with revolving line ups involving inconsistent degrees of absurdity. The fact that batshit crazy characters such as Groot and Rocket Raccoon are now household names is an indication of just how effective this movie was.

James Gunn proves that he is the man for the job by melding together his own signature style (alongside his regular collaborator Michael Rooker of course) with the tried and tested Marvel formula of big action, and frequent humour. It's a toss up between this and Thor Ragnarok for funniest MCU movie for sure. Nearly every joke lands well, and unlike the sequel, the humour is never overdone. The balance is near perfect.
The cast are mainly to thank for that of course. Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, and the voice talents of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel make up the titular Guardians, and they are all unique and have intriguing back stories. They are well developed as the film plays out, and together make for an irreplaceable band of misfits.
The supporting cast include the aformentioned Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, John C. Reilly, Lee Pace, Glenn Close, Peter Serafinowicz, Sean Gunn, Djimon Hounsou, Benicio Del Toro, and a first appearance by Josh Brolin as Thanos... It's another undeniably impressive ensemble cast for the MCU.

The special effects on display here are incredible. The whole film looks amazing and the big set pieces are hugely entertaining, and emotionally charged...These characters make a quick impression!
The only real criticism I have is that Ronan the Accuser, this films main antagonist, feels a little wasted. He looks great, and Lee Pace does the best with what he's given, but by the time the credits roll, he unfortunately joins the big pile of disposable MCU villains.
It's a small gripe when compared to all the good in this movie - that includes it's fantastic soundtrack by the way.

Guardians of the Galaxy is wonderful. It's proof that studios no longer have to rely on the big A-list names to make a great film, and as a result, this opened the doors for even more weird and wonderful characters to make their way into this behemoth of a series. One of my personal favourite MCU entries.
  
40x40

Robert Englund recommended East of Eden (1955) in Movies (curated)

 
East of Eden (1955)
East of Eden (1955)
1955 | Classics, Drama

"I also love Elia Kazan and it was a toss up for me between On the Waterfront, which I saw as a child, and East of Eden, which I saw as a young kid, and also rediscovered as an adult. But I do remember more recently a beautiful print that was struck — maybe by UCLA archives, maybe by AFI; I’m not sure who — and they had a screening of it at a theater that’s the longer one there in Century City, beautiful theater. At one time I think it was the state of the art theater in the country, with the first reclining seats and all that. They had [screened it] somehow, in conjunction with the LA city school system and the English department of LA city schools. And I believe that the matinee that I saw was predominantly schools… And the kids have to read East of Eden or Steinbeck, Travels with Charley or something in school, and you could tell this was going to be their Steinbeck assignment, so it was a field trip. But this… wasn’t a movie for young people, and I was a little worried that the noise, the kicking of the seats, and the high jinx that were prevailing in the auditorium before the lights went down would keep going. And I remember about five minutes into the film there’s a shot of James Dean hopping a freight — he jumps this train, near Monterey and he goes to Salinas, or vice versa — he hops the train and is on his way to Monterey to visit his mother, to find his mother in a brothel. And it’s cold, it’s evening — he pulls his little sweater over his head like a hoodie and he bundles up almost in a fetal position on the top of this train, snaking it’s way through the country side in Monterey county. And the entire audience shut up and you could hear a pin drop. It was the power of a true movie star. It was the first American teenager, James Dean, on the screen. And it didn’t matter that it was a predominantly… junior high school to high school kids — they got it. They got his angst, they got his beauty, they got his rebellion, all in literally 30 seconds’ worth of him exuding teen angst in the film and it was just this great moment. It reminded me of the power of stardom, of light and shadow on the screen, of a Greta Garbo, of a great screen kiss between — God rest her soul — the late Maureen O’Hara and John Wayne in The Quiet Man, or John Travolta strutting down the sidewalk in Saturday Night Fever— it’s just this great thing. And I love that movie anyway. There’s sequences and scenes in that movie, and James Dean, his grace in that movie — I think his movement in that movie is only matched by one or two Lee Marvin performances, and maybe one or two Sean Connery performances that I’ve seen in terms of just male physical grace. Really a great film, and I had to put Kazan on my list. So Kazan would be my number five for East of Eden starring James Dean."

Source
  
40x40

Sarah (7798 KP) created a post

Jan 18, 2021 (Updated Jan 18, 2021)  
(Posting this separately as it covers as a review for 3 films @The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) , @The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) and @The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) )
Film(s) #11 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

Film 11 is actually the three films that make up the Lord of the Rings trilogy: Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and Return of the King. Whilst I can entirely understand featuring the trilogy as a whole, especially as they were filmed back to back and follow the same continuing storyline, however as a watcher this is a tad frustrating. The extended editions of these films, which I own of course, come in at a hefty runtime of just under 12 hours and this means a marathon of a film screening. But gripes about the runtime aside, this trilogy is still every bit the epic I remember it being when they were first released nearly 20 years ago.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is based by JRR Tolkien’s book of the same name that follows Frodo (Elijah Wood), a hobbit who must journey to the darkest lands of Mordor to destroy a powerful ring before it falls into the hands of the evil lord Sauron. Throughout Frodo’s journey across Middle Earth, he is accompanied by a 9 strong fellowship: hobbits Sam (Sean Astin), Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd); men Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and Boromir (Sean Bean); elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom), wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and dwarf Gimli (John Rhys-Davies). All of whom must also face their own battles in the war to defeat Sauron.

At the time these films were released between 2001 and 2003, we’d never seen filmmaking taken to such extremes and I’d argue that aside from the later Hobbit film trilogy (the less said about those the better), we still haven’t seen anything like it in the decades since. To film these back to back over 15 months with a immense cast, sets and filming locations across New Zealand is no mean feat and watching these back you can really appreciate the sheer amount of work that has gone into these films. The cinematography is stunning and really highlights the beautiful scenery of New Zealand, and the CGI for it’s time was beyond impressive. The motion capture technology used for Andy Serkis’ portrayal of Gollum was incredible and like nothing we’d seen before. All of this paired with Howard Shore’s hugely memorable and iconic score makes for a superb bit of filmmaking.

What makes director Peter Jackson’s take on Lord of the Rings so engaging is the story and the fact that there’s nothing in the main plot that is unnecessary. Jackson had removed all of the erroneous side plots from the book (think Tom Bombadil) yet kept the main thread of the story intact, which effortlessly weaves serious fantasy and war with some rather light hearted and funny moments. While I would normally be an advocate of books over their film counterparts, I happily make an exception for the Lord of the Rings. The films are definitely better than the book. They’re also helped by a stellar cast, from seasoned veterans like Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee (Saruman), to relative newcomers at the time like Viggo Mortensen, who has by far a standout performance, who all do their part to make this trilogy come alive.

This isn’t to say that the trilogy is flawless. Whilst the films look good for their age, some of the special effects haven’t aged quite as well as you’d expect and there are some that are looking decidedly ragged around the edges – Treebeard in Fangorn forest is but one example. The casting of Orlando Bloom was also a questionable one. His acting skills are limited at best and while he is meant to be playing a rather emotionless elf, his performance is very poor compared the rest of the elvish actors. He probably isn’t helped by the fact that Legolas has been given some rather ridiculous and farfetched acrobatics that just look quite silly. And then there’s Éowyn, who is possibly one of the most irritating characters of all, her doe eyed fawning over Aragorn completely overruling the tough, feisty woman she’s trying to be. Finally I’d also question about whether the extended editions are truly necessary, which I appreciate does make me a bit of a hypocrite seen as I own them. They might include scenes we’d never seen in the theatrical releases, but I’d argue that none of these ads particularly much to the overall story.

However despite these flaws, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is undeniably an epic masterclass in filmmaking from Peter Jackson and these are 3 films that you won’t forget in a hurry. It can only be 10/10.
     
The Dukes of Hazzard (2005)
The Dukes of Hazzard (2005)
2005 | Action, Comedy
6
7.0 (7 Ratings)
Movie Rating
Those good ol’ boys from Hazzard County are back, in the film version of one of the most enduring series from the 70’s.

For those unfamiliar with the series, each week Cousins Bo and Luke Duke used their super charged Dodge Charger, christened “The General Lee”, to avoid corrupt police, city overlord Boss Hogg, and bad guys of the week.

If this sounds very simplistic, it is, yet the show was a huge ratings sensation as were subsequent T.V. reunions after the show completed its run. Thanks to reruns on syndication and the recent DVD sales, a new generation is encountering the Dukes and in many ways, that is who the new film is targeted to.

Starring Johnny Knoxville and Sean William Scott as Luke and Bo Duke, the film follows the basic theme of the series as the two cousins joke with one another as they run Moonshine for their Uncle Jessie (Willie Nelson), and try to stay one step ahead of the Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane (M.C. Gainey),

As the film opens, Bo is concerned about defending his title in the annual road rally and tying the record with his 4th consecutive win. Luke is concerned about staying one step ahead of a shotgun toting father & son duo who aren’t thrilled about his numerous dalliances with the daughter.

It is all fun and games until local overlord Boss Hogg (Burt Reynolds), seizes the family farm when he plants a still on the property and drives the Dukes out. Not ones to take it sitting down, Bo, Luke, and Cousin Daisy (Jessica Simpson), set out to discover why Boss Hogg is acquiring through ruthless means all of the land in the outlying areas of Hazzard County.

Bo and Luke are forced to flee Hazzard County and venture to Atlanta in order to gain further insight into Boss Hogg’s plans, which results in some funny fish-out-of-water moments when Bo and Luke have to deal with yuppies, college dorms, and the ‘hood as well as city police and the Boss himself.

Of course in keeping with the show, there will be countless car chases, spectacular jumps, and more than enough T&A thanks to Simpson, but what is surprising is that the film’s humor for the most part works.

Directed by Jay Chandrasekher of the Broken Lizard comedy troupe, the film does have its share of moments that may raise a few eyebrows as drug use, sex, and shots to the groin are present in this film, as is language that is more colorful than anything from the original series.

That being said, it is important to remember, that times have changed greatly since the Dukes first aired and you cannot blame the film makers for attempting to reach out to a broader audience. Such is the running joke of Bo being more concerned with his car than with woman, and his inability to speak with the object of his affections without fainting. This is quite a change from the unflappable character of the television show, yet one that still allows the good natured appeal of the character to remain intact.

The cast works well, especially the chemistry between Knoxville and Scott, as well as the scenery chewing performance of Reynolds who seems to be having the time of his life in the role. Much has been made of Simpson’s part, but it is mostly a limited role that offers her little chance to do much more than serve as eye candy, and does not show if she is capable of doing much more.

Nelson is sadly underused, but when he is on screen he raises the bar as his easygoing charm is a perfect match for Uncle Jessie.

While the film is in no way great cinema, it is at times an enjoyable bit of nostalgia to the days when Friday nights growing up meant dinner in front of the television watching the Dukes.

If car chases and some light comedy are what you are in the mood for, and you do not mind a thin story, you can do a lot worse than the Dukes.