Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Cider House Rules (1999) in Movies
Apr 26, 2020
Great acting, great writing, great directing
When we do our "Secret Cinema" adventures at our house (one person picks the film and the rest of the family doesn't know what it is until it starts running), we try to give clues. This film was nominated for 7 Oscars for the 1999 season, winning 2 - including a 2nd BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR OSCAR for a veteran actor. It is based on a wonderful novel and features 3 young actors well before they became stars.
Sound interesting? Then check out THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
Based on the novel by John Irving, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES follows the life of Homer Wells (a pre-SPIDERMAN Tobey Maguire), a young orphan who is raised/mentored by the head of his Orphanage, Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine). When Homer decides to leave the orphanage and experience the world, he learns quite a bit about life including THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
This is one of those "coming of age/follow a person through their life"-type films that relies heavily on style, substance and the performance of the actors on the screen. And under the Direction of Swedish Director Lasse Hallstrom and with words of the Screenplay by the author of the novel, John Irving, and with terrific actors like Maguire and Caine (amongst others) speaking those lines - a spell is cast and a heartwarming, life-affirming experience unfolds.
Caine won his 2nd Oscar for his role as Dr. Larch. This is a complex character who has his own, very certain, views on the world and is uncompromising in his care for others. It is a wonderful performance - even taking into account the peculiar Maine/United States accent Caine puts on. His character's empathy, strength and vulnerability are at play throughout this performance and he is a very deserving recipient of the Oscar.
A very young Charlize Theron and a (then) unknown Paul Rudd are engaging, charming and extremely photogenic as a young couple that Homer leaves the orphanage to see the world with. Rudd is the embodiment of the "nice guy" in this film - you can see the seeds of a career of playing "the nice guy" in this performance. Theron radiates beauty, power and a self-reliance that shows the strong actress she will become. While Homer's relationship with Dr. Larch is the heart and conflict of this film, the trio of McGuire/Theron/Rudd are the soul. The film also features a bevy of strong character actors in smaller roles that prop this film up. Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker, J.K. Simmons, Kate Nelligan and Delroy Lindo all shine in smaller roles - as do some of the child actors that portray other orphans like Keiran Caulkin and (especially) Per Erik Sullivan as the physically compromised Fuzzy.
But...none of this works if Maguire doesn't hold this film together (for we see this world/film through his eyes and he is in every scene) and he brings it. He has a quiet charm and innocence that helps bring us into his world in a welcoming way. Certainly, the awkwardness that Homer shows around Theron will be in evidence when he plays Peter Parker years later, but it is the inner strength that Maguire shows that really makes this character shine.
John Irving wrote the screen play based on his novel - and the results are satisfying, both to those who've never read the book (or have encountered an Irving novel/book before) or veteran readers/lovers of Irving's work (like myself).
All of this is wrapped in a package by Director Lasse Hallstrom (MY LIFE AS A DOG) in a charming, loving way that show the people, events and times through a lens that amplifies the proceedings in a way that is welcoming and engaging.
It is always a bit of a concern of mine to revisit a film that I remember fondly, but in this case, I am glad I jumped at the chance to revisit this charming film.
And you'll be glad you did, too.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sound interesting? Then check out THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
Based on the novel by John Irving, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES follows the life of Homer Wells (a pre-SPIDERMAN Tobey Maguire), a young orphan who is raised/mentored by the head of his Orphanage, Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine). When Homer decides to leave the orphanage and experience the world, he learns quite a bit about life including THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.
This is one of those "coming of age/follow a person through their life"-type films that relies heavily on style, substance and the performance of the actors on the screen. And under the Direction of Swedish Director Lasse Hallstrom and with words of the Screenplay by the author of the novel, John Irving, and with terrific actors like Maguire and Caine (amongst others) speaking those lines - a spell is cast and a heartwarming, life-affirming experience unfolds.
Caine won his 2nd Oscar for his role as Dr. Larch. This is a complex character who has his own, very certain, views on the world and is uncompromising in his care for others. It is a wonderful performance - even taking into account the peculiar Maine/United States accent Caine puts on. His character's empathy, strength and vulnerability are at play throughout this performance and he is a very deserving recipient of the Oscar.
A very young Charlize Theron and a (then) unknown Paul Rudd are engaging, charming and extremely photogenic as a young couple that Homer leaves the orphanage to see the world with. Rudd is the embodiment of the "nice guy" in this film - you can see the seeds of a career of playing "the nice guy" in this performance. Theron radiates beauty, power and a self-reliance that shows the strong actress she will become. While Homer's relationship with Dr. Larch is the heart and conflict of this film, the trio of McGuire/Theron/Rudd are the soul. The film also features a bevy of strong character actors in smaller roles that prop this film up. Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker, J.K. Simmons, Kate Nelligan and Delroy Lindo all shine in smaller roles - as do some of the child actors that portray other orphans like Keiran Caulkin and (especially) Per Erik Sullivan as the physically compromised Fuzzy.
But...none of this works if Maguire doesn't hold this film together (for we see this world/film through his eyes and he is in every scene) and he brings it. He has a quiet charm and innocence that helps bring us into his world in a welcoming way. Certainly, the awkwardness that Homer shows around Theron will be in evidence when he plays Peter Parker years later, but it is the inner strength that Maguire shows that really makes this character shine.
John Irving wrote the screen play based on his novel - and the results are satisfying, both to those who've never read the book (or have encountered an Irving novel/book before) or veteran readers/lovers of Irving's work (like myself).
All of this is wrapped in a package by Director Lasse Hallstrom (MY LIFE AS A DOG) in a charming, loving way that show the people, events and times through a lens that amplifies the proceedings in a way that is welcoming and engaging.
It is always a bit of a concern of mine to revisit a film that I remember fondly, but in this case, I am glad I jumped at the chance to revisit this charming film.
And you'll be glad you did, too.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Order in TV
Jul 6, 2020 (Updated Jul 6, 2020)
Don't Call Them Witches - 7/10
The Order is a 2019 supernatural horror/drama tv series created by Dennis Heaton and a team of writers including: Dennis Heaton, Shelley Eriksen, Rachel Langer, Jennica Harper, Penny Gummerson and Jason Filiatrault. The show was produced by Nomadic Pictures with producers Petros Danabassis, Jay Daniel Beechinor, and Morris Chapdelaine and released on Netflix in March. The shows stars Jake Manley, Sarah Grey, Matt Frewer, and Max Martini.
Thrust into a world of magic and monsters (werewolves), Jack Morten (Jake Manley) must pledge himself to a secret society so that he can avenge the death of his mother by their leader, Edward Coventry (Max Martini). His only family is his grandfather, "Pops" (Matt Frewer), the genius behind their plan for him to infiltrate the order and learn what he can to bring them down from the inside. Things go from bad to worse as he uncovers The Hermetic Order of the Blue Rose are practitioners of magic and someone or something is killing their pledges on campus. And more complications arise as he becomes enamoured with a higher ranking member Alyssa Drake (Sarah Grey) and a group of Knights whose mission is to stop evil magic users.
The Order is a decent show. I liked it alot but it was hard for me to get behind. It definitely has a lot of flaws and I can see a lot of people (like critics) tearing this show apart. That being said, I can't believe it has 100% on rotten tomatoes at this point or that it has been renewed for a second season. It was pretty slow building to me especially because I thought it was only going to be a secret society type show like the movie The Skulls but with a werewolf angle to it. I was very surprised when it was more about a magic secret society and later had a werewolf element to it. What I really didn't care for so much was the love theme to it that made me want to compare it to Twilight. You'll know what I'm talking about if you give it a chance. I really wanted to give this show a 6. There was a lot to hate in this show but it did get better towards the end. One thing the dialogue was full of cussing, which I didn't mind at all but it felt very amateurish. It made me laugh a lot but it also made me feel like the writers were in high school still. And I believe it's the main reason for the TV-MA rating. Which is another complaint I had. I don't think that for a rated TV-MA show, particularly a horror one, did they have enough violence, blood or gore. It felt very watered down to me in those respects. To me it seems like it was a cool idea, they had good actors who suffered from poor script and dialogue with a decent enough plot but a director(s) who were going for more of a Twilight vibe. As it gets farther into it did get better but barely got a 7 from me. As I write this I'm still contemplating whether to change my rating. It did do somethings quite well. They didn't mess up on the werewolves and even did them in a unique way and I appreciated the world building and
lore that they brought to them. Even the way they portrayed magic in the series was well done. I also generally liked the second half of the seasons' story arc and plot. I give this show a 7/10. I don't recommend it to anyone unless you were a big fan of the Twilight films or if you are just someone who watches anything with magic or werewolves.
Thrust into a world of magic and monsters (werewolves), Jack Morten (Jake Manley) must pledge himself to a secret society so that he can avenge the death of his mother by their leader, Edward Coventry (Max Martini). His only family is his grandfather, "Pops" (Matt Frewer), the genius behind their plan for him to infiltrate the order and learn what he can to bring them down from the inside. Things go from bad to worse as he uncovers The Hermetic Order of the Blue Rose are practitioners of magic and someone or something is killing their pledges on campus. And more complications arise as he becomes enamoured with a higher ranking member Alyssa Drake (Sarah Grey) and a group of Knights whose mission is to stop evil magic users.
The Order is a decent show. I liked it alot but it was hard for me to get behind. It definitely has a lot of flaws and I can see a lot of people (like critics) tearing this show apart. That being said, I can't believe it has 100% on rotten tomatoes at this point or that it has been renewed for a second season. It was pretty slow building to me especially because I thought it was only going to be a secret society type show like the movie The Skulls but with a werewolf angle to it. I was very surprised when it was more about a magic secret society and later had a werewolf element to it. What I really didn't care for so much was the love theme to it that made me want to compare it to Twilight. You'll know what I'm talking about if you give it a chance. I really wanted to give this show a 6. There was a lot to hate in this show but it did get better towards the end. One thing the dialogue was full of cussing, which I didn't mind at all but it felt very amateurish. It made me laugh a lot but it also made me feel like the writers were in high school still. And I believe it's the main reason for the TV-MA rating. Which is another complaint I had. I don't think that for a rated TV-MA show, particularly a horror one, did they have enough violence, blood or gore. It felt very watered down to me in those respects. To me it seems like it was a cool idea, they had good actors who suffered from poor script and dialogue with a decent enough plot but a director(s) who were going for more of a Twilight vibe. As it gets farther into it did get better but barely got a 7 from me. As I write this I'm still contemplating whether to change my rating. It did do somethings quite well. They didn't mess up on the werewolves and even did them in a unique way and I appreciated the world building and
lore that they brought to them. Even the way they portrayed magic in the series was well done. I also generally liked the second half of the seasons' story arc and plot. I give this show a 7/10. I don't recommend it to anyone unless you were a big fan of the Twilight films or if you are just someone who watches anything with magic or werewolves.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2021
There was some genuine surprise when I saw this had been made as an Amazon Original. I thought the character of Borat was old news, there certainly couldn’t be anyone left, in America or otherwise, that wasn’t wise to the joke by now, and aware of Sasha Baron Cohen’s desire to satirise the hell out of everything dumb folk may stand for. For it to work people have to believe 100% that he is a real person, this is what made the first film so incredible to watch – the opened mouthed awe at the pure audacity of the performer and the pure stupidity of the “victims”. But, I guess he figured a way around it, and also realised that no one but Borat could better lampoon the very worst aspects of the America the Trump era has created.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
The point of difference and main gimmick here is introducing his daughter, played with wonderful awareness by Maria Bakalova, using her as a tentative hook for a story and also a sneaky way to fool those who would recognise Borat himself, but not his offspring. Just witness the most excruciating set piece of the film where ex mayor of New York and avid Trump supporting buffoon Rudy Giuliani all but incriminates himself as a rapist. A scene that matches anything the first film offered for maximum can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing cringe value.
There are those that say they don’t like Borat or find him funny. I have never been sure that is the point, because everytime we do laugh, we immediately have to ask ourselves what we just laughed at and why we did? It is our own prejudices and preconceptions that are been highlighted – this is the “joke”, and it doesn’t require you to like the character or laugh at the more puerile moments – it is asking you to assess the judgements we all make on the values we live with in the world we have created. Liking it or finding it amusing is only necessary when looking at it as an entertainment, but its best aspects are so much more than that.
Myself, I agree, it often isn’t funny, and relies too often on crass elements such as bodily functions and teenage sexual innuendo. In many ways it is awful, but I also see that all of this is part of the cleverness. As a movie it has no peer to compare it to. Nothing else tries to do what these films attempt, so it is difficult to assess it as a work of entertainment or of… art (is it art?). Did I “enjoy” it? I mean, no not really, did I think it had artistic elements worthy of comment? I mean, no. But is it one of the most intelligent and genius commentaries on life in 2020? God damn right it is! There is so much relevance to worthy topics of social and political conversation here that you could spent 3 times the running time of the film talking about it. And more than being funny, that is the point of satire.
Both Baron Cohen and Bakalova are already doing well into award season with it, and good luck to them! They certainly deserve the triple nods they got from the Golden Globes, which is the biggest awards event to recognise comedy as a separate entity. I agree with some critics I have read that speculate this film is so of now that it won’t age well, and in fact come to make less and less sense as we move on and forget what the Trump era was like to live through. Longevity is something I know I look for when awarding high praise, so for that alone I have to knock it down a few points. In conclusion, I admire this acheivement more than I liked or enjoyed it. But I do recommend you see it as soon as possible if you haven’t already, because it is going to get wrinkly very quickly – just like Rudy G.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Little Nightmares II in Video Games
Apr 9, 2021
The incredible story. (3 more)
Great visuals and interactions with items both in the foreground and background.
Brilliant score.
Its gameplay and controls are mostly entertaining.
Some puzzles are difficult to solve without cheating. (2 more)
It is ridiculously difficult at times. Expect to die. A lot.
It is longer than the first game, but still feels short.
A Visually Creepy Masterpiece with a few Minor Flaws
Little Nightmares II is a vast improvement over the original game that still has a few flaws that could be ironed out in a sequel. The first game was creepy and a lot of fun, but it felt incredibly short. It was the type of game you bought, played through quickly, and traded in because it didn’t seem to have much replay value. Although I'm just now reading about the DLC for the game and the hidden ending to Little Nightmares II, but I digress.
Little Nightmares II has you playing as Mono, a young boy that wears a paper bag over his head; not unlike Ugly Bob from the Terrance & Phillip In Not Without My Anus on the first episode of the second season of South Park. The game is a lot like Limbo with more color. Mono is thrown into a world of bleak surroundings and even darker outcomes. Thankfully, you have Six from the previous game to assist you. However, Little Nightmares II is only one player which seems like a missed opportunity for this to be a two player game.
The format of each level is pretty similar other than the last one. You typically flee a major boss character that chases you while you search for the key to a locked door. Stealth is involved throughout the game. If you make too much noise, run too fast, or walk into the light from the shadows in view of a boss’s eyesight then you get eaten or killed. You use your surroundings to thwart the boss, which usually involves killing them yourself. The chase element is the same near the end of the game, but you're thrown into more surreal and dreamlike surroundings.
It does seem like you interact more with the background in comparison to the previous game. You can almost always run into the background on any level. It may result in you falling off a cliff, but that kind of exploration ability in a side-scroller is really cool. I played Little Nightmares II on a PS5 despite the game being for PS4. What’s cool is you can feel Mono’s heartbeat through the controller when situations are tense and seeing little dust particles float through the air as you explore is a nice addition.
The highlight of the game is the story. The world Little Nightmares and Little Nightmares II takes place in is so deliciously dreary with what feels like no hope for survival. You root for Mono and Six to stay together as friends, but that outcome seems less and less likely as the game progresses. You also gain powers as Mono later on; the most noteworthy one being able to use televisions as portals. All of the major bosses are fantastically terrifying, as well. You’re chased by a hunter with a shotgun, a teacher with a stretchy neck and an appetite, twitchy mannequins that only move in darkness, viewers obsessed with television, and The Thin Man who kidnaps Six.
The game can be frustrating at times. Not only is it difficult and will result in you dying over and over again, but certain puzzles are almost impossible to solve without looking up how to solve them first.
According to the internet, it seems as though this may be the end of the Little Nightmares franchise since the creators are moving on to something new and will focus less on sequels in the future. It’s unfortunate since Dave Mervik’s writing with the story of the game is so well done and the game as a whole is mostly very fun and entertaining to play while providing legitimate thrills and chills. Tobias Lilja’s musical score is a frightening delight. However, despite Little Nightmare II’s flaws, it’ll be impossible not to be invested in anything Tarsier Studios is involved with in the years to come.
Little Nightmares II has you playing as Mono, a young boy that wears a paper bag over his head; not unlike Ugly Bob from the Terrance & Phillip In Not Without My Anus on the first episode of the second season of South Park. The game is a lot like Limbo with more color. Mono is thrown into a world of bleak surroundings and even darker outcomes. Thankfully, you have Six from the previous game to assist you. However, Little Nightmares II is only one player which seems like a missed opportunity for this to be a two player game.
The format of each level is pretty similar other than the last one. You typically flee a major boss character that chases you while you search for the key to a locked door. Stealth is involved throughout the game. If you make too much noise, run too fast, or walk into the light from the shadows in view of a boss’s eyesight then you get eaten or killed. You use your surroundings to thwart the boss, which usually involves killing them yourself. The chase element is the same near the end of the game, but you're thrown into more surreal and dreamlike surroundings.
It does seem like you interact more with the background in comparison to the previous game. You can almost always run into the background on any level. It may result in you falling off a cliff, but that kind of exploration ability in a side-scroller is really cool. I played Little Nightmares II on a PS5 despite the game being for PS4. What’s cool is you can feel Mono’s heartbeat through the controller when situations are tense and seeing little dust particles float through the air as you explore is a nice addition.
The highlight of the game is the story. The world Little Nightmares and Little Nightmares II takes place in is so deliciously dreary with what feels like no hope for survival. You root for Mono and Six to stay together as friends, but that outcome seems less and less likely as the game progresses. You also gain powers as Mono later on; the most noteworthy one being able to use televisions as portals. All of the major bosses are fantastically terrifying, as well. You’re chased by a hunter with a shotgun, a teacher with a stretchy neck and an appetite, twitchy mannequins that only move in darkness, viewers obsessed with television, and The Thin Man who kidnaps Six.
The game can be frustrating at times. Not only is it difficult and will result in you dying over and over again, but certain puzzles are almost impossible to solve without looking up how to solve them first.
According to the internet, it seems as though this may be the end of the Little Nightmares franchise since the creators are moving on to something new and will focus less on sequels in the future. It’s unfortunate since Dave Mervik’s writing with the story of the game is so well done and the game as a whole is mostly very fun and entertaining to play while providing legitimate thrills and chills. Tobias Lilja’s musical score is a frightening delight. However, despite Little Nightmare II’s flaws, it’ll be impossible not to be invested in anything Tarsier Studios is involved with in the years to come.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Seinfeld - Season 1 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
I always assumed I wouldn’t like Seinfeld in the 90s. In fact I was opposed to the very idea of it on principle. And that principle was: I’ve never heard of this guy as a comedian, and American stand-up usually isn’t funny. I never saw a single episode until six months ago – in my head it was some dumb, canned laughter show with very forced scripts and little charm. I just didn’t get why it was always quoted amongst the best sitcoms of all time, and I wasn’t willing to find out. This is called “being ignorant”. Guilty.
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Another favourite from the awards season that came with some strong acclaim from amongst friends and trusted reviewers, WWII satire Jojo Rabbit, from the likeable and unique mind of Taika Waititi, was always high on my list as a must see movie.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Unhinged (2020) in Movies
Aug 8, 2020
A courtesy tap
If you were ever going to deliberately hack-off anyone in real life, Russell Crowe would probably be low on the list. A genuine bear of a man! He looks like he could kill you with a single swipe of his clawed furry hand!
In the movie it was a certain Rachel (Caren Pistorius) who randomly crosses the ursine-one's path. She encounters his unnamed character ("Man") at traffic light. Rachel is having a bad day herself. But the unstable and unhinged man makes it his mission to show her "what a bad day really feels like".
Having had over 40 years of driving experienced, I've experienced two incidents of genuine road rage against me. One of these was in similar circumstances to Rachel's experience. By me giving slightly more than a 'courtesy tap' on the horn to a driver who cut me up. Both though were 'white-knuckles-on-the-wheel' scary experiences. So although, as a viewer, I felt a degree of irritation at Rachel's stubborn actions in the movie, it didn't seem completely 'out there'. You only need the other guy to be a psycho, and....
What follows is a thriller having a vein of dark comedy running through it. Yes, it's relatively predictable and above-average on the gore rating but nonetheless enjoyable.
The movie, of course, blends some staples of the thriller genre. Firstly there is that favorite trope of Spielberg of a malevolent force, persistently lurking in the shadows to wreak havoc at any time. (Think of those classics "Duel" and "Jaws". Blended with that is a recurring plot-point of Hitchcock movies: the every-man (in this case every-woman), in the mode of James Stewart or Cary Grant, uprooted from their hum-drum normal lives to suddenly face peril they are unequipped to deal with.
Holding that role here extremely well is Caren Pistorius as the luckless Rachel. She's only had bit parts in previous movies I've seen - "Denial", "Mortal Engines" and "The Light Between Oceans". But here she gets a starring role, up front and central, and I thought she pulled it off really well. She also gets to deliver the best line in the film in the violent and bloody denouement! A leading actress I would like to see more of for sure.
The star-power evident here though is Crowe. His portrayal as the steely-eyed unhinged psychopath is beautifully and believably done. A scene in a diner is especially chilling, featuring Jimmi Simpson as the unfortunate Andy, Rachel's divorce lawyer. (If, like me, you were desperately trying to place the actor, Simpson played the young 'good-guy' tourist in the brilliant first season of "Westworld".)
Unhinged is nicely penned and, in the main, nicely directed. With the pen is Carl Ellsworth, who's sparse career has delivered chillers such as "Disturbia" and "The Last House on the Left". And although we've been in this sort of stalker territory numerous times before, the script of "Unhinged" delivers some nice twists. For example, the dangers inherent in "Find My Friends" style tracking apps. One negative though for me is the rising body-count of "innocents". It gave me the slightly icky feeling I felt when the jumbo jet is crashed in "Die Hard 2".
Keeping up the pace is German director Derrick Borte, someone new to me. The car chases incorporated into the action are tense (reminiscent sometimes of "Baby Driver") and well-shot (by Irish cinematographer Brendan Galvin). There are the occasional "oh, really!!" moments, that a more experienced director might have chosen to excise. But on the whole, this is a taut little thriller, wisely sticking to a 90 minute running time, and never losing my interest.
Although formulaic, and at times extremely violent for a '15' certificate, "Unhinged" made a welcome and entertaining return for me to the multiplex after the Covid break.
(For the full graphical review, please check it out here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-unhinged-2020/).
In the movie it was a certain Rachel (Caren Pistorius) who randomly crosses the ursine-one's path. She encounters his unnamed character ("Man") at traffic light. Rachel is having a bad day herself. But the unstable and unhinged man makes it his mission to show her "what a bad day really feels like".
Having had over 40 years of driving experienced, I've experienced two incidents of genuine road rage against me. One of these was in similar circumstances to Rachel's experience. By me giving slightly more than a 'courtesy tap' on the horn to a driver who cut me up. Both though were 'white-knuckles-on-the-wheel' scary experiences. So although, as a viewer, I felt a degree of irritation at Rachel's stubborn actions in the movie, it didn't seem completely 'out there'. You only need the other guy to be a psycho, and....
What follows is a thriller having a vein of dark comedy running through it. Yes, it's relatively predictable and above-average on the gore rating but nonetheless enjoyable.
The movie, of course, blends some staples of the thriller genre. Firstly there is that favorite trope of Spielberg of a malevolent force, persistently lurking in the shadows to wreak havoc at any time. (Think of those classics "Duel" and "Jaws". Blended with that is a recurring plot-point of Hitchcock movies: the every-man (in this case every-woman), in the mode of James Stewart or Cary Grant, uprooted from their hum-drum normal lives to suddenly face peril they are unequipped to deal with.
Holding that role here extremely well is Caren Pistorius as the luckless Rachel. She's only had bit parts in previous movies I've seen - "Denial", "Mortal Engines" and "The Light Between Oceans". But here she gets a starring role, up front and central, and I thought she pulled it off really well. She also gets to deliver the best line in the film in the violent and bloody denouement! A leading actress I would like to see more of for sure.
The star-power evident here though is Crowe. His portrayal as the steely-eyed unhinged psychopath is beautifully and believably done. A scene in a diner is especially chilling, featuring Jimmi Simpson as the unfortunate Andy, Rachel's divorce lawyer. (If, like me, you were desperately trying to place the actor, Simpson played the young 'good-guy' tourist in the brilliant first season of "Westworld".)
Unhinged is nicely penned and, in the main, nicely directed. With the pen is Carl Ellsworth, who's sparse career has delivered chillers such as "Disturbia" and "The Last House on the Left". And although we've been in this sort of stalker territory numerous times before, the script of "Unhinged" delivers some nice twists. For example, the dangers inherent in "Find My Friends" style tracking apps. One negative though for me is the rising body-count of "innocents". It gave me the slightly icky feeling I felt when the jumbo jet is crashed in "Die Hard 2".
Keeping up the pace is German director Derrick Borte, someone new to me. The car chases incorporated into the action are tense (reminiscent sometimes of "Baby Driver") and well-shot (by Irish cinematographer Brendan Galvin). There are the occasional "oh, really!!" moments, that a more experienced director might have chosen to excise. But on the whole, this is a taut little thriller, wisely sticking to a 90 minute running time, and never losing my interest.
Although formulaic, and at times extremely violent for a '15' certificate, "Unhinged" made a welcome and entertaining return for me to the multiplex after the Covid break.
(For the full graphical review, please check it out here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-unhinged-2020/).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022) in Movies
Apr 15, 2022
A fun ride - with heart
The first recommendation when watching EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE is to not try to figure out what is going on in this movie during the first 1/2 hour to 45 minutes. This will drive you mad. Just sit back and enjoy the mind-bending experience you are having.
After that point, either it will click in your brain…or it won’t. If it does - great! If not…continue to sit back and enjoy the mind-bending experience you are having.
For…EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE is a trippy head-trip of a film that is certainly unique - but it also has something going for it that all good films do - characters that you will care about in a story that will touch your heart.
Written and Directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (SWISS ARMY MAN), EVERYTHING…tells the tale of unhappily married couple Evelyn Wang (Michelle Yeoh) and Waymond Wang (Ke Huy Quan), her father Gong Gong (the great James Hong) and their daughter, Joy (Stephanie Hsu). When interdimensional travel interrupts their mundane life, things get much, much more than mundane.
Yes, folks, you read that right INTERDIMENSIONAL TRAVEL - and this is not a Marvel movie! Evelyn and family start jumping to parallel dimensions, experiencing everything, everywhere…all at once (hence, the name of the film).
This is a smart, unique and visually interesting film and credit for this must go to Wang and Scheinert. They have come up with something unusual. However, they don’t just do “unusual for unusual sake” they wrap this film up - and connect the dots - in a satisfying way in the end. Oh…and they also build in some incredibly impressive fight scenes along the way. To not hype them too much, but these are the best fight scenes that have been on film in quite some time - certainly the most interesting and unique since the JOHN WICK films.
The duo, smartly, enlisted the aid of the underappreciated - but very talented - Michelle Yeoh (CRAZY RICH ASIANS) as the protagonist of this piece. It is a wise choice for she must go from mousey housewife to kick-butt SuperHero (and everywhere in between) throughout the course of this film and her Martial Arts background comes in very, very handy. It is a bravura performance by Yeoh and it would be TERRIFIC if her name is called come awards season next year (yes, it is that good of a performance).
She is ably assisted by Hong (a veteran character actor with more than 450 credits to his name), Hsu (known for her role as Mei in THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL) and, especially Quan (the kid “Short Round” who assists the hero in INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM) - it was good to see Quan back on the big screen.
The filmmakers also sprinkle some very strong character actors/actresses in the mix here. Both Jenny Slate (Mona-Lisa Saperstein in PARKS & REC) and Harry Shum, Jr. (GLEE, CRAZY RICH ASIANS) are fun in small roles as is the aforementioned James Hong as Gong Gong (the Grandfather).
But…the person who ALMOST steals this film from Ms. Yeoh is the incomparable Jamie Lee Curtis as the somewhat overweight and out of shape IRS Agent who plays a pivotal role in Evelyn’s life across the Dimensions. It is a fun role for Curtis who is not afraid to look physically bad. Again, I would LOVE IT if she got some love come awards time next year (she won’t, but maybe in some other parallel Universe she would).
Not for everyone - the multi-dimensional travel is going to give some folks a headache as they try to figure things out - but if you surrender yourself to the wildness that is going on, and embrace the spirit and the heart of this film, you will be rewarded with a very rich film going experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars out of 10 (might move up to 9 on a rewatch) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
After that point, either it will click in your brain…or it won’t. If it does - great! If not…continue to sit back and enjoy the mind-bending experience you are having.
For…EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE is a trippy head-trip of a film that is certainly unique - but it also has something going for it that all good films do - characters that you will care about in a story that will touch your heart.
Written and Directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (SWISS ARMY MAN), EVERYTHING…tells the tale of unhappily married couple Evelyn Wang (Michelle Yeoh) and Waymond Wang (Ke Huy Quan), her father Gong Gong (the great James Hong) and their daughter, Joy (Stephanie Hsu). When interdimensional travel interrupts their mundane life, things get much, much more than mundane.
Yes, folks, you read that right INTERDIMENSIONAL TRAVEL - and this is not a Marvel movie! Evelyn and family start jumping to parallel dimensions, experiencing everything, everywhere…all at once (hence, the name of the film).
This is a smart, unique and visually interesting film and credit for this must go to Wang and Scheinert. They have come up with something unusual. However, they don’t just do “unusual for unusual sake” they wrap this film up - and connect the dots - in a satisfying way in the end. Oh…and they also build in some incredibly impressive fight scenes along the way. To not hype them too much, but these are the best fight scenes that have been on film in quite some time - certainly the most interesting and unique since the JOHN WICK films.
The duo, smartly, enlisted the aid of the underappreciated - but very talented - Michelle Yeoh (CRAZY RICH ASIANS) as the protagonist of this piece. It is a wise choice for she must go from mousey housewife to kick-butt SuperHero (and everywhere in between) throughout the course of this film and her Martial Arts background comes in very, very handy. It is a bravura performance by Yeoh and it would be TERRIFIC if her name is called come awards season next year (yes, it is that good of a performance).
She is ably assisted by Hong (a veteran character actor with more than 450 credits to his name), Hsu (known for her role as Mei in THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL) and, especially Quan (the kid “Short Round” who assists the hero in INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM) - it was good to see Quan back on the big screen.
The filmmakers also sprinkle some very strong character actors/actresses in the mix here. Both Jenny Slate (Mona-Lisa Saperstein in PARKS & REC) and Harry Shum, Jr. (GLEE, CRAZY RICH ASIANS) are fun in small roles as is the aforementioned James Hong as Gong Gong (the Grandfather).
But…the person who ALMOST steals this film from Ms. Yeoh is the incomparable Jamie Lee Curtis as the somewhat overweight and out of shape IRS Agent who plays a pivotal role in Evelyn’s life across the Dimensions. It is a fun role for Curtis who is not afraid to look physically bad. Again, I would LOVE IT if she got some love come awards time next year (she won’t, but maybe in some other parallel Universe she would).
Not for everyone - the multi-dimensional travel is going to give some folks a headache as they try to figure things out - but if you surrender yourself to the wildness that is going on, and embrace the spirit and the heart of this film, you will be rewarded with a very rich film going experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars out of 10 (might move up to 9 on a rewatch) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
theVman (16 KP) rated Twin Peaks - Season 3 in TV
May 22, 2017
The Cast (1 more)
The new mysterys
Lack of the familar Twin Peaks stuff (2 more)
The way the story unfolds
Very Slow
The first four episodes
Twin Peaks: The Return
*** Ive tried to write this as spoiler free as i can, you may find some in here but nothing that i think would ruin watching the show for you ***
I don’t think it will come to anyones surprise to say that the first four episodes of Twin Peaks return are strange. But maybe not in the way that we know and love.
I found these first four episodes difficult to enjoy not because they were bad, but because it was not what I was expecting at all. I wanted the key things that I love about Twin Peaks to be there, the returning characters, the iconic score by Angleo Badalamenti, the quirky weirdness grounded by soap opera like stories. I wanted the dark seriousness of murder, lust and money, beautifully intertwined with the ridiculousness of silent drape runners, saving the pine weasel and miss twin peaks contests.Unfortunately I found very little of any of what I wanted.
Yes Cooper is back or more accurately Kyle Maclachlan is back but has yet to act or sound anything like Special Agent Dale Cooper at all, the story calling for him to play a very lifeless rendition of his former glory. Other familiar faces have shown up along the way, but not very many and for not very long at all.
What we have is something very Lynchian, long drawn out scenes, especially in The Black Lodge that after extended moments of a droning humming score and lot of not a lot going on in slow motion followed by more not a lot going on but this time with a white horse or a talking lump of flesh on a leafless tree in the picture, it starts to feel like a lot of weird stuff just for sheer sake of being weird.
Fans of the previous seasons of Twin Peaks might be left wondering what is going on with the stories that were left open, is Leo still holding that rope in his mouth, what happened after the explosion in the bank vault, and what the hell has happened to Annie – well you wont find any of these answers here. Instead we are given a whole bunch of new characters, who’s stories we are still trying to figure out and how they are related to the events of Twin Peaks, which is a made into a bigger and more confusing mystery seeing as none of them actually take place in Twin Peaks at all. In fact, the most recognisable place in the first few hours is The Black Lodge, which features extensively in the first two episodes before “Cooper” bizarrely ends up in Las Vegas. Also knocking us out of our comfort zone and driving home the fact that this is not the same kind of Twin Peaks show we are used to, are the occasional F bombs being dropped and the coy sexiness that flowed through the show has been replaced with plain nudity.
We have been given vision that is pure David Lynch. He produces some fantastical imagery and some unnerving editing that is like watching Eraserhead, Lost Highway and Fire Walk With Me all at the same time on the same screen. As a piece of art it has its place amongst Lynch fans, but as a piece of entertainment for prime time television, it missed the mark for me, and as a return to Twin Peaks, it should be ashamed of itself, as apart from 30 seconds or so in episode 4 where here the familiar twangs of the original score, I didn’t feel like there was any return to that great tv show from the early 90s. There is the odd nugget of new that will keep me watching, Naomi Watts and Matthew Lillard have joined the team in what promises to be entertaining roles, there is a glass box that is being kept in some kind of secret bunker under constant video monitoring that seems to have something to do with The Black Lodge, the log lady is getting message from her log again, a body that doesn’t belong to its head and we are still hanging out at the Bang Bang Bar with Bobby, Shelley and James even if it was for far too brief at time.
Overall: It didn’t deliver on its promise, or give me what I wanted, but there is still a lot more episodes to come. I cant think of another show that would get away with such a slow build or lack of deliverance than the new third season of Twin Peaks.
*** Ive tried to write this as spoiler free as i can, you may find some in here but nothing that i think would ruin watching the show for you ***
I don’t think it will come to anyones surprise to say that the first four episodes of Twin Peaks return are strange. But maybe not in the way that we know and love.
I found these first four episodes difficult to enjoy not because they were bad, but because it was not what I was expecting at all. I wanted the key things that I love about Twin Peaks to be there, the returning characters, the iconic score by Angleo Badalamenti, the quirky weirdness grounded by soap opera like stories. I wanted the dark seriousness of murder, lust and money, beautifully intertwined with the ridiculousness of silent drape runners, saving the pine weasel and miss twin peaks contests.Unfortunately I found very little of any of what I wanted.
Yes Cooper is back or more accurately Kyle Maclachlan is back but has yet to act or sound anything like Special Agent Dale Cooper at all, the story calling for him to play a very lifeless rendition of his former glory. Other familiar faces have shown up along the way, but not very many and for not very long at all.
What we have is something very Lynchian, long drawn out scenes, especially in The Black Lodge that after extended moments of a droning humming score and lot of not a lot going on in slow motion followed by more not a lot going on but this time with a white horse or a talking lump of flesh on a leafless tree in the picture, it starts to feel like a lot of weird stuff just for sheer sake of being weird.
Fans of the previous seasons of Twin Peaks might be left wondering what is going on with the stories that were left open, is Leo still holding that rope in his mouth, what happened after the explosion in the bank vault, and what the hell has happened to Annie – well you wont find any of these answers here. Instead we are given a whole bunch of new characters, who’s stories we are still trying to figure out and how they are related to the events of Twin Peaks, which is a made into a bigger and more confusing mystery seeing as none of them actually take place in Twin Peaks at all. In fact, the most recognisable place in the first few hours is The Black Lodge, which features extensively in the first two episodes before “Cooper” bizarrely ends up in Las Vegas. Also knocking us out of our comfort zone and driving home the fact that this is not the same kind of Twin Peaks show we are used to, are the occasional F bombs being dropped and the coy sexiness that flowed through the show has been replaced with plain nudity.
We have been given vision that is pure David Lynch. He produces some fantastical imagery and some unnerving editing that is like watching Eraserhead, Lost Highway and Fire Walk With Me all at the same time on the same screen. As a piece of art it has its place amongst Lynch fans, but as a piece of entertainment for prime time television, it missed the mark for me, and as a return to Twin Peaks, it should be ashamed of itself, as apart from 30 seconds or so in episode 4 where here the familiar twangs of the original score, I didn’t feel like there was any return to that great tv show from the early 90s. There is the odd nugget of new that will keep me watching, Naomi Watts and Matthew Lillard have joined the team in what promises to be entertaining roles, there is a glass box that is being kept in some kind of secret bunker under constant video monitoring that seems to have something to do with The Black Lodge, the log lady is getting message from her log again, a body that doesn’t belong to its head and we are still hanging out at the Bang Bang Bar with Bobby, Shelley and James even if it was for far too brief at time.
Overall: It didn’t deliver on its promise, or give me what I wanted, but there is still a lot more episodes to come. I cant think of another show that would get away with such a slow build or lack of deliverance than the new third season of Twin Peaks.