Search
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Teen Titans Go! To the Movies (2018) in Movies
Feb 8, 2019
Good Fun
The Teen Titans go on yet another crazy adventure when Robin decides it’s time for them to up their popularity by making a movie.
Acting: 10
This crew has been around for years and knows their way around voice acting. Voices match respective characters perfectly. Raven sounds just like a moody spellcaster while Starfire is bright and bubbly. Meanwhile, Beast Boy tries to be cool, but comes off as the biggest nerd in the group. When you read the comics and see how the characters act and interact, you can envision their voices sounding just like this.
Beginning: 10
You get action. You get funny. You get exactly what you get from the show on an even more extreme level. These superheroes crack me up and act just like you think teenagers would if given these powers. The first ten minutes shows them kicking butt and cracking you up while doing it.
Characters: 10
The movie succeeds off more than just the appeal of the Titans, although it certainly helps to see funny familiar faces like Cyborg doing his usual Cyborg thing. There are a number of other characters here that fill the time and keep you entertained. Between the Justice League, given exaggerated personalities, and a couple of cameos I won’t dare ruin, I was happy to see, not only the depth of character choices, but each character contributing to the fun of the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
It’s always a treat watching superhero teamups and this movie takes full advantage of that. The Teen Titans works so well together because all of their powers are unique so it’s cool to visually see them interact during action sequences. The movie also takes advantage of moving around to different locations so you’re taken on quite a journey by the end of it.
Conflict: 9
Action succeeds by not being overdone and contributing to the funny. The Titans kick butt, but they’re an extremely goofy bunch so I take even more pleasure in watching them fight. The movie has a pretty short run-time but directors Aaron Horvath and Peter Rida Michail make sure that time is maximized with quality action sequences.
Genre: 6
I’ve had a lot of good things to say so far, but the movie isn’t without its flaws. Those shortcomings keep it from extending into the classic realm of superhero films. Even animated superhero movies is starting to become a crowded genre and the challenge to find a place among the greats is getting tougher. Teen Titans Go! to the Movies holds its own…but I wouldn’t call it a classic.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
The funny gags within the movie not only take the show to new levels, it also helps to move the pace along quite nicely. Titans is not just kid-funny, but its subtle references make it funny on an adult level as well. Only adults that know DC movie history will pick up on some of the classic cameos within the story. One minute the crew is locked in a heated battle, the next you’re hearing hilarious jabs at Marvel. It’s meant to be fun and it succeeds greatly in that aspect.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Overall: 85
The plot was probably the weakest point of Teen Titans Go! to the Movies and kept the movie from jumping to A-status. The show is typically much ado about nothing and it’s hard to translate that to the big screen. While the story lacked in some spots and the overall plot was meh, the movie itself is still really enjoyable. Don’t expect to have your mind blown, but expect to have a really good time.
Acting: 10
This crew has been around for years and knows their way around voice acting. Voices match respective characters perfectly. Raven sounds just like a moody spellcaster while Starfire is bright and bubbly. Meanwhile, Beast Boy tries to be cool, but comes off as the biggest nerd in the group. When you read the comics and see how the characters act and interact, you can envision their voices sounding just like this.
Beginning: 10
You get action. You get funny. You get exactly what you get from the show on an even more extreme level. These superheroes crack me up and act just like you think teenagers would if given these powers. The first ten minutes shows them kicking butt and cracking you up while doing it.
Characters: 10
The movie succeeds off more than just the appeal of the Titans, although it certainly helps to see funny familiar faces like Cyborg doing his usual Cyborg thing. There are a number of other characters here that fill the time and keep you entertained. Between the Justice League, given exaggerated personalities, and a couple of cameos I won’t dare ruin, I was happy to see, not only the depth of character choices, but each character contributing to the fun of the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
It’s always a treat watching superhero teamups and this movie takes full advantage of that. The Teen Titans works so well together because all of their powers are unique so it’s cool to visually see them interact during action sequences. The movie also takes advantage of moving around to different locations so you’re taken on quite a journey by the end of it.
Conflict: 9
Action succeeds by not being overdone and contributing to the funny. The Titans kick butt, but they’re an extremely goofy bunch so I take even more pleasure in watching them fight. The movie has a pretty short run-time but directors Aaron Horvath and Peter Rida Michail make sure that time is maximized with quality action sequences.
Genre: 6
I’ve had a lot of good things to say so far, but the movie isn’t without its flaws. Those shortcomings keep it from extending into the classic realm of superhero films. Even animated superhero movies is starting to become a crowded genre and the challenge to find a place among the greats is getting tougher. Teen Titans Go! to the Movies holds its own…but I wouldn’t call it a classic.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
The funny gags within the movie not only take the show to new levels, it also helps to move the pace along quite nicely. Titans is not just kid-funny, but its subtle references make it funny on an adult level as well. Only adults that know DC movie history will pick up on some of the classic cameos within the story. One minute the crew is locked in a heated battle, the next you’re hearing hilarious jabs at Marvel. It’s meant to be fun and it succeeds greatly in that aspect.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Overall: 85
The plot was probably the weakest point of Teen Titans Go! to the Movies and kept the movie from jumping to A-status. The show is typically much ado about nothing and it’s hard to translate that to the big screen. While the story lacked in some spots and the overall plot was meh, the movie itself is still really enjoyable. Don’t expect to have your mind blown, but expect to have a really good time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Feb 10, 2019
Not as interesting as it wanted to be
On my airplane ride from Mpls to San Diego I was able to catch up with gritty, action-noir thriller BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE and was really surprised by how much I enjoyed it. So, I was excited to see that another gritty,, action-noir film, HOTEL ARTEMIS was showing on the flight back.
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pompeii (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The disaster movie has always been a genre guaranteed to create incredible box-office returns. If you look at Roland Emmerich’s impressive blockbuster hit 2012, which grossed over $750million, it is clear that destroying well-known landmarks = bums on seats.
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Dumb and Dumber To (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
It is hard to believe that it is been 20 years since Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels brought the moronic Harry and Lloyd to the big screen. The comedic adventures of the well-meaning but idiotic best friends became a box office smash and has maintained a loyal worker fans despite the highly disappointing prequel that was made in an attempt to extend series. With the Farrelly brothers back in place to write and direct the long-awaited follow-up it should come as no surprise as to what viewers are in store for with “Dumb and Dumber To”.
Lloyd (Jim Carrey) has been an institution for the past two decades while Harry (Jeff Daniels), visits him lawyerly once a week. When the reason behind Lloyd’s institutionalization becomes clear Harry informs his old friend that is in desperate need of a kidney transplant. With his options limited, Harry visits his family whom he has not seen in quite some time and goes through some mail that had been delivered over the years.
Harry learns that an old acquaintance was pregnant and in an effort to see if the child he never knew he had could be a donor, the bumbling duo sets out to find child Harry never knew he had. This is easier said than done as the mother (Kathleen Turner), give the child up for adoption and her only effort to communicate resulted in a letter being returned to her with a note asking her not to write again.
Undaunted Harry and Lloyd set out from their Rhode Island home and venture down to Maryland before learning that the object of their quest is already left for New Mexico to attend a very important conference. The duo decided to head on to New Mexico with a third person in tow not knowing that he secretly is aiming to do away with them in a con limited inheritance scheme.
As anyone who’s seen the previous film will remember, traveling with Harry and Lloyd can be extremely dangerous to one’s physical and mental sanity and the ensuing years have done nothing to change this. In short time duo arrives at their goal but finds their natural tendencies to get in and cause trouble has followed them resulting in a series of chaotic misadventures.
While many of the jokes and situations were recycled from previous films including Lloyd’s daydreaming about a perfect date and various car pranks, one thing that is undeniable is the great chemistry and timing between the two leads. The material certainly strains its PG-13 rating in terms of suggestiveness but even though some of the jokes do not quite succeed and the plot is at best paper thin, it was sure good to see these two back in action.
The film is at best a guilty pleasure because it will be easy to say it was kind of dumb and meandering at points and that the two characters were not given much to do other than an act that was funny 20 years earlier but may seem a bit strange to date considering both Daniels and Carrey have shown they are capable of doing so much more.
For me I looked at it is a bit of a nostalgic guilty pleasure that despite the shortcomings and faults offered some enjoyable although mostly forgettable distractions in between some good laughs. For those willing to take more the same and can temper their expectations accordingly you will likely find this trip one worth taking if nothing else than for the nostalgia.
I for one am hoping that we haven’t seen the last these two in action but I certainly would like to see them come back with a better script and certainly do not want have to wait 20 years for this to happen.
http://sknr.net/2014/11/14/dumb-dumber/
Lloyd (Jim Carrey) has been an institution for the past two decades while Harry (Jeff Daniels), visits him lawyerly once a week. When the reason behind Lloyd’s institutionalization becomes clear Harry informs his old friend that is in desperate need of a kidney transplant. With his options limited, Harry visits his family whom he has not seen in quite some time and goes through some mail that had been delivered over the years.
Harry learns that an old acquaintance was pregnant and in an effort to see if the child he never knew he had could be a donor, the bumbling duo sets out to find child Harry never knew he had. This is easier said than done as the mother (Kathleen Turner), give the child up for adoption and her only effort to communicate resulted in a letter being returned to her with a note asking her not to write again.
Undaunted Harry and Lloyd set out from their Rhode Island home and venture down to Maryland before learning that the object of their quest is already left for New Mexico to attend a very important conference. The duo decided to head on to New Mexico with a third person in tow not knowing that he secretly is aiming to do away with them in a con limited inheritance scheme.
As anyone who’s seen the previous film will remember, traveling with Harry and Lloyd can be extremely dangerous to one’s physical and mental sanity and the ensuing years have done nothing to change this. In short time duo arrives at their goal but finds their natural tendencies to get in and cause trouble has followed them resulting in a series of chaotic misadventures.
While many of the jokes and situations were recycled from previous films including Lloyd’s daydreaming about a perfect date and various car pranks, one thing that is undeniable is the great chemistry and timing between the two leads. The material certainly strains its PG-13 rating in terms of suggestiveness but even though some of the jokes do not quite succeed and the plot is at best paper thin, it was sure good to see these two back in action.
The film is at best a guilty pleasure because it will be easy to say it was kind of dumb and meandering at points and that the two characters were not given much to do other than an act that was funny 20 years earlier but may seem a bit strange to date considering both Daniels and Carrey have shown they are capable of doing so much more.
For me I looked at it is a bit of a nostalgic guilty pleasure that despite the shortcomings and faults offered some enjoyable although mostly forgettable distractions in between some good laughs. For those willing to take more the same and can temper their expectations accordingly you will likely find this trip one worth taking if nothing else than for the nostalgia.
I for one am hoping that we haven’t seen the last these two in action but I certainly would like to see them come back with a better script and certainly do not want have to wait 20 years for this to happen.
http://sknr.net/2014/11/14/dumb-dumber/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A stunning portrait of friendship and comedy
To this day, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are still regarded as one of the greatest comedy duos. Their acts used slapstick comedy, cartoon violence and song to delight audiences. From 1927 all the way up to 1955, they performed these acts together both on screen and on stage.
Something that really made me smile about Stan & Ollie was the fact that both Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly’s careers are rooted in comedy. Coogan is known for playing Alan Partridge and Reilly is known for numerous roles in American comedy films. What better way to pay homage to such an iconic comedy act. Both lead actors took to their roles superbly, and I loved both equally. It was a joy to follow them as they took us on tour, recreating iconic routines that made it impossible to look away from the screen.
I was captivated throughout, genuinely finding myself laughing out loud at these comedy routines that have aged like a fine wine. Even now, they’re absolutely hilarious. Coogan and Reilly worked perfectly together, embodying all that we know and love about Laurel and Hardy whilst revealing intimate secrets that took place from behind the stage curtain. Although their careers were comedic, some of their life experiences certainly weren’t.
The duos wives also make an appearance, and are equally as delightful to watch. Lucille Hardy (Shirley Henderson) and Ida Kitaeva Laurel (Nina Arianda) are a double act themselves, with very different beliefs and personalities. I loved the dynamic between the two women and found myself laughing out loud at them too. Despite their differences, they are both overbearing wives who think they know what’s best for their respective husbands, often with some very emotional results. I really can’t fault the casting at all, it was just magical to watch.
Aesthetically, I adored Stan & Ollie and what a treat it was to see Newcastle back in the day! The set and costume design is just gorgeous as the two embark on a rather exhausting tour of the UK, and we get a glimpse of so many cities and the different audiences that attend each night. We see the duos struggles and successes, each scene delivering a different emotional tug. Our heart sinks as we see the empty seats, and rises again as they start to draw in more and more crowds. The camera speaks louder than words a lot of the time, knowing exactly what to show the audience in order to mirror what the characters are feeling.
It is impossible to document every waking moment of Laurel and Hardy’s lives, but this biopic still manages to show us a lot in a relatively short space of time. With a runtime of 1 hour and 37 minutes, it would have been easy for it to fall flat and leave audiences wishing they’d seen more. But in my opinion, that didn’t happen. Whilst we were dropped into the story with their careers in full swing, it didn’t feel like we’d missed out on anything. The film requires a little knowledge about the duo before watching, but you don’t need a history lesson in order to enjoy it to the full.
For me, this was the epitome of a great biopic. Coogan and Reilly looked the part, they acted the part, and they made their audience laugh both on-screen and in the cinema. I laughed, I cried, and I had a brilliant time that I can see myself wanting to revisit in the near future. The epilogue was so emotionally charged that I had to stay in my seat and wipe away tears for a few minutes, and that says everything about what a perfect film this was. I’m delighted that it is my first five star review of 2019!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/25/a-stunning-portrait-of-friendship-and-comedy-my-review-of-stan-ollie/
Something that really made me smile about Stan & Ollie was the fact that both Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly’s careers are rooted in comedy. Coogan is known for playing Alan Partridge and Reilly is known for numerous roles in American comedy films. What better way to pay homage to such an iconic comedy act. Both lead actors took to their roles superbly, and I loved both equally. It was a joy to follow them as they took us on tour, recreating iconic routines that made it impossible to look away from the screen.
I was captivated throughout, genuinely finding myself laughing out loud at these comedy routines that have aged like a fine wine. Even now, they’re absolutely hilarious. Coogan and Reilly worked perfectly together, embodying all that we know and love about Laurel and Hardy whilst revealing intimate secrets that took place from behind the stage curtain. Although their careers were comedic, some of their life experiences certainly weren’t.
The duos wives also make an appearance, and are equally as delightful to watch. Lucille Hardy (Shirley Henderson) and Ida Kitaeva Laurel (Nina Arianda) are a double act themselves, with very different beliefs and personalities. I loved the dynamic between the two women and found myself laughing out loud at them too. Despite their differences, they are both overbearing wives who think they know what’s best for their respective husbands, often with some very emotional results. I really can’t fault the casting at all, it was just magical to watch.
Aesthetically, I adored Stan & Ollie and what a treat it was to see Newcastle back in the day! The set and costume design is just gorgeous as the two embark on a rather exhausting tour of the UK, and we get a glimpse of so many cities and the different audiences that attend each night. We see the duos struggles and successes, each scene delivering a different emotional tug. Our heart sinks as we see the empty seats, and rises again as they start to draw in more and more crowds. The camera speaks louder than words a lot of the time, knowing exactly what to show the audience in order to mirror what the characters are feeling.
It is impossible to document every waking moment of Laurel and Hardy’s lives, but this biopic still manages to show us a lot in a relatively short space of time. With a runtime of 1 hour and 37 minutes, it would have been easy for it to fall flat and leave audiences wishing they’d seen more. But in my opinion, that didn’t happen. Whilst we were dropped into the story with their careers in full swing, it didn’t feel like we’d missed out on anything. The film requires a little knowledge about the duo before watching, but you don’t need a history lesson in order to enjoy it to the full.
For me, this was the epitome of a great biopic. Coogan and Reilly looked the part, they acted the part, and they made their audience laugh both on-screen and in the cinema. I laughed, I cried, and I had a brilliant time that I can see myself wanting to revisit in the near future. The epilogue was so emotionally charged that I had to stay in my seat and wipe away tears for a few minutes, and that says everything about what a perfect film this was. I’m delighted that it is my first five star review of 2019!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/25/a-stunning-portrait-of-friendship-and-comedy-my-review-of-stan-ollie/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 400 Days (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 400 Days starts with our four main characters Captain Theo (Routh), Emily (Lotz), Cole (Cook) and Bug (Feldman) being put in a social simulation for 400 days to show what it will be like to travel through space over long periods of time. We follow the four as they get put hiccups as the learn to manage them after losing connect to mission control early on but it is dealing with the psychological side of the mission that will test them the most.
When they open the hatch they find themselves questioning what happened but more worrying where they are now.
400 days really seems to be a film that is two different incomplete films, the first half is all psychological but when they leave the hatch it turns into a post-apocalyptic film that never really ends up being dealt with. Each side of the story works well as a single film but both don’t have enough time to really pull off what is really happen. As for the ending it is all left up to you what you think happens which doesn’t help and what happens to two of the character never really gets answered either. This has problems but really could have been great.
Actor Review
Caity Lotz: Emily is the medical officers who is also the former partner of Theo who has to make sure the crew remains sane over the course of the mission as well as keeping the medication up to date. Caity gives us a solid performance but really doesn’t get a chance shine.
Brandon Routh: Theo is the captain of the mission; he has to make the big decision with the information provided by his crew. He doesn’t want to be on the mission and has been on a four-day bender before the mission. Brandon continued to show why he is struggling to live up to the hype he once had early in his career.
Dane Cook: Cole is the engineer on the mission, he is easily the most unpopular on the crew and his cocky attitude leads him to become distant to the rest of the crew. Dane is another actor in this film who hasn’t made much of his career and even with this choice because he tries to do something different.
Ben Feldman: Bug is the brains of the crew making all the hard decisions and is clearly the smartest of the four crew members on the ship. He had to leave his young family behind for the mission which haunts him every day of the mission. Ben does a good job even if he does end up being a very generic character for the genre.
Support Cast: 400 days has a supporting you only see half way through the film but they end up being very generic.
Director Review: Matt Osterman – Matt brings us a great idea that doesn’t quite get pulled off effectively.
Mystery: 400 days keep you guessing what is actually happening to our characters.
Sci-Fi: 400 days puts our character in the experiment which would include space travel and a post-apocalyptic world.
Thriller: 400 days does keep us guessing from start to finish.
Settings: 400 days has two good settings the space ship which creates the isolation and the town the end up in that shocks.
Special Effects: 400 days uses the effects for certain moments but tries to keep everything need to the minimum.
Suggestion: 400 days is one to try, it does have a few flaws but you can see a couple of good points. (Try It)
Best Part: The ideas are good.
Worst Part: Not enough time for each story, both sides could have been short to increase the second one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 31 Minutes
Overall: Something Missing but good ideas being created.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/11/02/400-days-2015/
When they open the hatch they find themselves questioning what happened but more worrying where they are now.
400 days really seems to be a film that is two different incomplete films, the first half is all psychological but when they leave the hatch it turns into a post-apocalyptic film that never really ends up being dealt with. Each side of the story works well as a single film but both don’t have enough time to really pull off what is really happen. As for the ending it is all left up to you what you think happens which doesn’t help and what happens to two of the character never really gets answered either. This has problems but really could have been great.
Actor Review
Caity Lotz: Emily is the medical officers who is also the former partner of Theo who has to make sure the crew remains sane over the course of the mission as well as keeping the medication up to date. Caity gives us a solid performance but really doesn’t get a chance shine.
Brandon Routh: Theo is the captain of the mission; he has to make the big decision with the information provided by his crew. He doesn’t want to be on the mission and has been on a four-day bender before the mission. Brandon continued to show why he is struggling to live up to the hype he once had early in his career.
Dane Cook: Cole is the engineer on the mission, he is easily the most unpopular on the crew and his cocky attitude leads him to become distant to the rest of the crew. Dane is another actor in this film who hasn’t made much of his career and even with this choice because he tries to do something different.
Ben Feldman: Bug is the brains of the crew making all the hard decisions and is clearly the smartest of the four crew members on the ship. He had to leave his young family behind for the mission which haunts him every day of the mission. Ben does a good job even if he does end up being a very generic character for the genre.
Support Cast: 400 days has a supporting you only see half way through the film but they end up being very generic.
Director Review: Matt Osterman – Matt brings us a great idea that doesn’t quite get pulled off effectively.
Mystery: 400 days keep you guessing what is actually happening to our characters.
Sci-Fi: 400 days puts our character in the experiment which would include space travel and a post-apocalyptic world.
Thriller: 400 days does keep us guessing from start to finish.
Settings: 400 days has two good settings the space ship which creates the isolation and the town the end up in that shocks.
Special Effects: 400 days uses the effects for certain moments but tries to keep everything need to the minimum.
Suggestion: 400 days is one to try, it does have a few flaws but you can see a couple of good points. (Try It)
Best Part: The ideas are good.
Worst Part: Not enough time for each story, both sides could have been short to increase the second one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 31 Minutes
Overall: Something Missing but good ideas being created.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/11/02/400-days-2015/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated 28 Weeks Later... (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
After being ravaged by the deadly “Rage” virus in “28 Days Later”, the nation of England is taking it’s first steps towards recovery under a U.S. lead United Nations force.
In 28 Weeks Later, society is slowing starting anew as thanks to a repopulated military zone on the Isle of Dogs. When a plane of natives arrives with two children, a sense of hope accompanies them, as the return of children is seen as a sign that the crisis is over and a better future is at hand.
The children are soon reunited with their father (Robert Carlyle), who is struggling to cope with the death of his wife, lost to the infected hordes months earlier. The fact that he panicked and left his wife to her fate is a secret that he has lived with, still he feels compelled to tell his children that their mother died despite his best efforts to help her.
As children are prone to do, the two children become bored with living in a compound and sneak past the blockade into the outer areas of London, areas that have not been fully reclaimed since the attack, declared off limits due to safety concerns.
Undaunted, the duo return to their former home to collect some of their personal items and there they make a startling discovery. Their mother is alive, and has been holding up inside their house since being left for dead by their father.
Once returned to the compound, it’s discovered the mother is a carrier of the virus, but does not manifest the disease nor it’s symptoms. Fascinated that they may have found a way to create a vaccine for the virus, the leader of the military medical community passes along her findings to her commanding officer. Unswayed by the possibility of creating a vaccine should future outbreaks occur, the commanding officer decides to follow standing orders and eradicate all signs of the virus which means killing the children’s’ mother.
Before the military can take action, a chance encounter causes the virus to spread and before long, the military is taking up arms in an effort to control the disease that is spreading like wildfire amongst the survivors. In short order, it becomes impossible to control the
infected, and the decision is made to kill anything that moves, infected or not in an effort to contain the outbreak.
During the chaos, the children are taken under protective care of a lone soldier and the doctor who is convinced that the children may hold the key to defeating the virus in their blood and must be protected at all costs. What follows is a chaotic race to get the children to safety while avoiding the infected and the soldiers in a deadly race against time for their very survival.
Following up the classic first film is a difficult task, and while not as good as the original, the sequel for the most part works. The characters and plot are paper thin, even by horror film standards, and there is little effort made to give the characters any back story or motivation beyond survival. The film is essentially one long segment of characters fleeing, yet there are some amazing visuals and chilling moments that will delight fans of the series and genre.
The images of London in desolation and of gas and fire flowing through the streets are haunting, and provide a none to subtle reference to the situation in Iraq, of a nation out of control.
Director has done a solid job of crafting a modern horror tale of a world gone mad, that raises ethical questions that will stay with viewers after the films conclusion.
In 28 Weeks Later, society is slowing starting anew as thanks to a repopulated military zone on the Isle of Dogs. When a plane of natives arrives with two children, a sense of hope accompanies them, as the return of children is seen as a sign that the crisis is over and a better future is at hand.
The children are soon reunited with their father (Robert Carlyle), who is struggling to cope with the death of his wife, lost to the infected hordes months earlier. The fact that he panicked and left his wife to her fate is a secret that he has lived with, still he feels compelled to tell his children that their mother died despite his best efforts to help her.
As children are prone to do, the two children become bored with living in a compound and sneak past the blockade into the outer areas of London, areas that have not been fully reclaimed since the attack, declared off limits due to safety concerns.
Undaunted, the duo return to their former home to collect some of their personal items and there they make a startling discovery. Their mother is alive, and has been holding up inside their house since being left for dead by their father.
Once returned to the compound, it’s discovered the mother is a carrier of the virus, but does not manifest the disease nor it’s symptoms. Fascinated that they may have found a way to create a vaccine for the virus, the leader of the military medical community passes along her findings to her commanding officer. Unswayed by the possibility of creating a vaccine should future outbreaks occur, the commanding officer decides to follow standing orders and eradicate all signs of the virus which means killing the children’s’ mother.
Before the military can take action, a chance encounter causes the virus to spread and before long, the military is taking up arms in an effort to control the disease that is spreading like wildfire amongst the survivors. In short order, it becomes impossible to control the
infected, and the decision is made to kill anything that moves, infected or not in an effort to contain the outbreak.
During the chaos, the children are taken under protective care of a lone soldier and the doctor who is convinced that the children may hold the key to defeating the virus in their blood and must be protected at all costs. What follows is a chaotic race to get the children to safety while avoiding the infected and the soldiers in a deadly race against time for their very survival.
Following up the classic first film is a difficult task, and while not as good as the original, the sequel for the most part works. The characters and plot are paper thin, even by horror film standards, and there is little effort made to give the characters any back story or motivation beyond survival. The film is essentially one long segment of characters fleeing, yet there are some amazing visuals and chilling moments that will delight fans of the series and genre.
The images of London in desolation and of gas and fire flowing through the streets are haunting, and provide a none to subtle reference to the situation in Iraq, of a nation out of control.
Director has done a solid job of crafting a modern horror tale of a world gone mad, that raises ethical questions that will stay with viewers after the films conclusion.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Blair Witch Project (1999) in Movies
Oct 18, 2019
While this film is credited as being the first "found footage" film ever made, it is not true. I found several websites even saying the same thing. Not true. That award goes to Cannibal Holocaust (I am pretty sure) which was release almost two decades earlier (1980 vs. 1999).
The film begins with sort of standard documentary fare showing interviews with the Maryland locals discussing if they have heard of the legend of the Blair Witch. For those that had, they recalled their own memories of the stories they had heard from others or from their childhood. Eventually, the documentary filmmakers meet the odd-looking Mary Brown who details her first hand experience with the demon recalling its weird hairy appearance.
Heather, Josh and Michael then decide to go for an outdoor wooded adventure in an attempt to locate and document evidence of the existence of the local legend themselves, not knowing what lies ahead for them. The journey starts out pretty normal with Heather doing most of the onscreen explanations, the other two mostly relegated to replying to her whims or arguing with her about various topics.
Eventually, a few bad thing start to happen including the loss of their woodland map and hearing strange sounds during the blackness of night. They now wander the woods becoming increasingly agitated with each other and their situation when it is revealed they may be walking in circles and are no closer to completing their quest or finding their way out. They see various various stick and rock formations which are not naturally occurring which means someone else is out there with them.
I remember sitting in a darkened theatre in 1999 hearing about this film briefly before its release. Not much was known at the time, and I recall this being one of the first films to have significant internet buzz beforehand. The internet was only a few years old at the time, so this was also a relatively new concept. Modern audiences are spoiled with so much content for every film available online, that everyone almost loses the feeling of being completely surprised by a film you knew virtually nothing about going in.
For Blair Witch, the added element of the "found footage" style was foreign to pretty much everyone which added to the hype and box office success of the film. Virtually the entire viewing public were not completely sure if what they were watching actually happened or this was fiction. It helped that writer/directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez used an unknown cast so seeing someone they recognized onscreen would not ruin the experience of believing its authenticity.
I am down on sloppy modern moviemakers most of the time these days relying so heavily on CGI and making movies look like pretty perfection rather than focusing on the most important thing for a horror film (or any film) a good screenplay and implied tension. For Blair Witch, it has been said some scenes were improvised or given a general direction but not a full script; however, that doesn't detract from the authentic nature of the situation.
The 2nd half of the film has some truly terrifying moments which happen in the background or off-screen showing you don't need to spend all your money on a CGI monster, just make it scary. The scene and keyart for the film showing the top half of Heather's head which she speaks into the camera explaining her terror and anguish is so believable and mesmerizing it send chills down my spine every time I watch it.
The film also get bagged for the ending which might be considered too short or anti-climactic; however, I think it's perfect and really the only way the movie could have gone.
The film begins with sort of standard documentary fare showing interviews with the Maryland locals discussing if they have heard of the legend of the Blair Witch. For those that had, they recalled their own memories of the stories they had heard from others or from their childhood. Eventually, the documentary filmmakers meet the odd-looking Mary Brown who details her first hand experience with the demon recalling its weird hairy appearance.
Heather, Josh and Michael then decide to go for an outdoor wooded adventure in an attempt to locate and document evidence of the existence of the local legend themselves, not knowing what lies ahead for them. The journey starts out pretty normal with Heather doing most of the onscreen explanations, the other two mostly relegated to replying to her whims or arguing with her about various topics.
Eventually, a few bad thing start to happen including the loss of their woodland map and hearing strange sounds during the blackness of night. They now wander the woods becoming increasingly agitated with each other and their situation when it is revealed they may be walking in circles and are no closer to completing their quest or finding their way out. They see various various stick and rock formations which are not naturally occurring which means someone else is out there with them.
I remember sitting in a darkened theatre in 1999 hearing about this film briefly before its release. Not much was known at the time, and I recall this being one of the first films to have significant internet buzz beforehand. The internet was only a few years old at the time, so this was also a relatively new concept. Modern audiences are spoiled with so much content for every film available online, that everyone almost loses the feeling of being completely surprised by a film you knew virtually nothing about going in.
For Blair Witch, the added element of the "found footage" style was foreign to pretty much everyone which added to the hype and box office success of the film. Virtually the entire viewing public were not completely sure if what they were watching actually happened or this was fiction. It helped that writer/directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez used an unknown cast so seeing someone they recognized onscreen would not ruin the experience of believing its authenticity.
I am down on sloppy modern moviemakers most of the time these days relying so heavily on CGI and making movies look like pretty perfection rather than focusing on the most important thing for a horror film (or any film) a good screenplay and implied tension. For Blair Witch, it has been said some scenes were improvised or given a general direction but not a full script; however, that doesn't detract from the authentic nature of the situation.
The 2nd half of the film has some truly terrifying moments which happen in the background or off-screen showing you don't need to spend all your money on a CGI monster, just make it scary. The scene and keyart for the film showing the top half of Heather's head which she speaks into the camera explaining her terror and anguish is so believable and mesmerizing it send chills down my spine every time I watch it.
The film also get bagged for the ending which might be considered too short or anti-climactic; however, I think it's perfect and really the only way the movie could have gone.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
There's a definite fatigue now with films based on music stars and their works, I was already feeling it earlier in the year with Yesterday and Blinded By The Light. While I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about seeing Judy the trailer had me as soon as I heard "Somewhere over the rainbow".
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) in Movies
Mar 28, 2020
Holds up well - worth your time
I remember really liking THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON when it first was released in 2011. It made me a fan of Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchette, Tilda Swinton, Taraji P. Henson, Jared Harris and Director David Fincher - and I defended this film to those that did not have as high an opinion of this movie than I did. So when my daughter recommended we re-watch this film (a film I haven't watched in 5 or 6 years), I was excited to revisit it.
And...I'm glad I did...for I re-fell in love with the portions of the film that I remembered fondly while I was also able to see the flaws (mostly in pacing) that drops this film down a peg.
Based on the short story by F. Scott Fitgerald, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON tells the tale of a man who ages backwards. His life is chronicled from his birth (right after the "Great War" ended in the 1919) and follows right up to his death.
As played by Brad Pitt in an Oscar nominated turn, the titular character is earnest, honest, somewhat naive and (as he gets younger) very attractive to look at. I've been a fan of Pitt's acting since the days of FIGHT CLUB and 12 MONKEYS (and think he deserved his Oscar for ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD) and he does not disappoint in this film, especially since he has quite a few strong performers to play against (even while under heavy make-up).
Jared Harris, Taraji P. Henson (in an Oscar nominated performance) and Mahershala Ali all bring strong, winning performances but is the performances of 2 strong actresses that drew my attention to them from this point forward. Tilda Swinton (SNOWPIERCER) brings a sense of longing to her portrayal of a woman that Benjamin has a brief affair with. Their scenes together are touching and poignant with a sense of sadness that had me rooting for Swinton's character throughout.
But, it is the appearance of Cate Blanchette (THOR: RAGNAROK) that elevates this film for me. I had been a fan of Blanchette's since her Oscar winning role of Katherine Hepburn in THE AVIATOR, but this performance raised her abilities in my eyes and I eagerly await everything that she is going to appear in (including CAROL, a film that I loathe).
Director David Fincher (Se7EN, FIGHT CLUB) was also Oscar nominated for his work in this film and he blends a lifelong love story with events of the day while mixing in some wonderful CGI that helps age (or de-age) Benjamin as the film unfolds. This film, for me, was a departure for Fincher who I came to admire for his trippy films, but he brings a human-ness to the proceedings that helps ground the fantastical into reality.
Upon this viewing, I did find that this film does drag a bit at times - it is as if Fincher (and the cast) fell so in love with the characters and the scenes, that they lose track of the pacing, letting the film bog down from time to time. The film runs 2 hours and 46 minutes...and I think I could help find spots to trim about 20 minutes out of it.
The film did win in 3 of the 13 categories it was Oscar nominated in (it was nominated for BEST FILM, but did not win that award). The Oscar wins were all for special effects of some sort - and I kept looking to see if I could spot the tricks and Special FX in the film - and I could not. A good sign that this film is holding up 9 years later.
Take a trip through time (backwards) with Benjamin Button, it's is worth it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...I'm glad I did...for I re-fell in love with the portions of the film that I remembered fondly while I was also able to see the flaws (mostly in pacing) that drops this film down a peg.
Based on the short story by F. Scott Fitgerald, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON tells the tale of a man who ages backwards. His life is chronicled from his birth (right after the "Great War" ended in the 1919) and follows right up to his death.
As played by Brad Pitt in an Oscar nominated turn, the titular character is earnest, honest, somewhat naive and (as he gets younger) very attractive to look at. I've been a fan of Pitt's acting since the days of FIGHT CLUB and 12 MONKEYS (and think he deserved his Oscar for ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD) and he does not disappoint in this film, especially since he has quite a few strong performers to play against (even while under heavy make-up).
Jared Harris, Taraji P. Henson (in an Oscar nominated performance) and Mahershala Ali all bring strong, winning performances but is the performances of 2 strong actresses that drew my attention to them from this point forward. Tilda Swinton (SNOWPIERCER) brings a sense of longing to her portrayal of a woman that Benjamin has a brief affair with. Their scenes together are touching and poignant with a sense of sadness that had me rooting for Swinton's character throughout.
But, it is the appearance of Cate Blanchette (THOR: RAGNAROK) that elevates this film for me. I had been a fan of Blanchette's since her Oscar winning role of Katherine Hepburn in THE AVIATOR, but this performance raised her abilities in my eyes and I eagerly await everything that she is going to appear in (including CAROL, a film that I loathe).
Director David Fincher (Se7EN, FIGHT CLUB) was also Oscar nominated for his work in this film and he blends a lifelong love story with events of the day while mixing in some wonderful CGI that helps age (or de-age) Benjamin as the film unfolds. This film, for me, was a departure for Fincher who I came to admire for his trippy films, but he brings a human-ness to the proceedings that helps ground the fantastical into reality.
Upon this viewing, I did find that this film does drag a bit at times - it is as if Fincher (and the cast) fell so in love with the characters and the scenes, that they lose track of the pacing, letting the film bog down from time to time. The film runs 2 hours and 46 minutes...and I think I could help find spots to trim about 20 minutes out of it.
The film did win in 3 of the 13 categories it was Oscar nominated in (it was nominated for BEST FILM, but did not win that award). The Oscar wins were all for special effects of some sort - and I kept looking to see if I could spot the tricks and Special FX in the film - and I could not. A good sign that this film is holding up 9 years later.
Take a trip through time (backwards) with Benjamin Button, it's is worth it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)