Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Yards (2000) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: The Yards starts when Leo (Wahlberg) gets released from prison, needing to lock down a job his Aunt Kitty (Dunaway) sets him up with her husband Frank Olchin (Caan) who runs a railway construction company in Queens. Without the skills set, he can’t be given a job, but his bag man Willie (Phoenix) who is also Leo’s best friend recruits him to do the dirty work for the company.
When a job goes wrong Willie and Leo both commit an act of violence, only Leo can be identified, he must go on the run while finding everybody trying to hunt him down, trying to expose the truth before it is too late, with only is mother Val (Burstyn) and cousin Erica (Theron) to trust.
Thoughts on The Yards
Characters – Leo is an ex-con that is released from prison, he best friend and Uncle offer him two different jobs, one he isn’t qualified for and one would mean working against the law. He finds himself on the wrong side of the law after a job goes wrong needing to do anything he can to clear his name, while being considered the most wanted man in Queens. Willie is the best friend of Leo, he has made a career being the bag man for Frank which will see him complete the deals to make the business succeed. He ends up leading Leo down the wrong path, when it is him that makes the biggest mistake. Erica is the cousin of Leo and girlfriend to Willie, she is completing her education and gets caught between who to remain loyal towards. Frank runs the corrupt railway construction company that has nearly every political figure in his back pocket. He keeps himself looking clean, letting his men do the dirty work, leading to him being forced into a difficult decision. Val is the mother of Leo that has always tried to give him everything he could give him in life, left to suffer when he gets blamed for the crimes.
Performances – Mark Wahlberg is strong in the leading role, he gives us a performance that shows his regret, confusion and worries about the future he is meant to have once out of prison. Joaquin Phoenix brings us a performance which shows us just how he can make us hate a character. Charlize Theron in the supporting role shows us everything she needs to without getting the same spotlight as the rest of the cast, while James Caan works in the corrupt businessman role with ease. The rest of the cast are solid without doing anything outside the comfort zones.
Story – The story here takes us into the world of corruption within the Queens railway service construction company that pays off to get jobs after doing their own dirty work to make others look worse, we follow one ex-con being placed into this world who sees the bad only to become the prime suspect in the investigation of a murder. The story does try to keep us guessing to what will happen and who Leo could trust only for it to become to run of mill in the genre to make it new or original. It might be loosely based on a real case, it however doesn’t offer enough to make things feel like we could see too much going on, rather than focusing on the cover up itself.
Crime/Romance – The crime world we enter is the political corruption of construction which shows us how quickly people can turn on each other without doubt. The romance side of this story takes a back burner which is here to show how difficult of a position Erica is put into.
Settings – The film is set in Queen which shows us how the community will come together to work together or turn on somebody.
Scene of the Movie – The incident.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The story is overly generic.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting crime story that does everything by the book without doing anything overly special.
Overall: Simple crime film.
When a job goes wrong Willie and Leo both commit an act of violence, only Leo can be identified, he must go on the run while finding everybody trying to hunt him down, trying to expose the truth before it is too late, with only is mother Val (Burstyn) and cousin Erica (Theron) to trust.
Thoughts on The Yards
Characters – Leo is an ex-con that is released from prison, he best friend and Uncle offer him two different jobs, one he isn’t qualified for and one would mean working against the law. He finds himself on the wrong side of the law after a job goes wrong needing to do anything he can to clear his name, while being considered the most wanted man in Queens. Willie is the best friend of Leo, he has made a career being the bag man for Frank which will see him complete the deals to make the business succeed. He ends up leading Leo down the wrong path, when it is him that makes the biggest mistake. Erica is the cousin of Leo and girlfriend to Willie, she is completing her education and gets caught between who to remain loyal towards. Frank runs the corrupt railway construction company that has nearly every political figure in his back pocket. He keeps himself looking clean, letting his men do the dirty work, leading to him being forced into a difficult decision. Val is the mother of Leo that has always tried to give him everything he could give him in life, left to suffer when he gets blamed for the crimes.
Performances – Mark Wahlberg is strong in the leading role, he gives us a performance that shows his regret, confusion and worries about the future he is meant to have once out of prison. Joaquin Phoenix brings us a performance which shows us just how he can make us hate a character. Charlize Theron in the supporting role shows us everything she needs to without getting the same spotlight as the rest of the cast, while James Caan works in the corrupt businessman role with ease. The rest of the cast are solid without doing anything outside the comfort zones.
Story – The story here takes us into the world of corruption within the Queens railway service construction company that pays off to get jobs after doing their own dirty work to make others look worse, we follow one ex-con being placed into this world who sees the bad only to become the prime suspect in the investigation of a murder. The story does try to keep us guessing to what will happen and who Leo could trust only for it to become to run of mill in the genre to make it new or original. It might be loosely based on a real case, it however doesn’t offer enough to make things feel like we could see too much going on, rather than focusing on the cover up itself.
Crime/Romance – The crime world we enter is the political corruption of construction which shows us how quickly people can turn on each other without doubt. The romance side of this story takes a back burner which is here to show how difficult of a position Erica is put into.
Settings – The film is set in Queen which shows us how the community will come together to work together or turn on somebody.
Scene of the Movie – The incident.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The story is overly generic.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting crime story that does everything by the book without doing anything overly special.
Overall: Simple crime film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021
Good companion piece to CITIZEN KANE
Orson Welles’ 1941 masterpiece CITIZEN KANE is truly a remarkable work of art (especially for the time it was created) and it regularly lands in either the #1 or #2 spot on my list of all-time favorite films (battling back and forth with THE GODFATHER - the one that ends up at #1 is usually the one I have watched most recently), so I am a sucker for films that are about (or around) the making of this classic.
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
Verdict: Goosebumps With Pure Horror
Story: Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark starts with the backdrop of the Richard Nixon election, where high school students Stella (Colletti), Auggie (Rush) and Chuck (Zajur) look to get revenge on the school bully, which sees them stumble into stranger’s Ramon (Garza) car on Halloween which sees them head to a haunted house that has the story about the daughter of the family Sarah Bellows, writing scary stories for the local kids that soon went missing.
When Stella finds the story book she starts to investigate the stories, only to see the stories writing themselves with the locals starting to go missing, including her friends, Stella must investigate the myth about Sarah to stop the people she loves going missing.
Thoughts on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
Characters – Stella is an outsider at her school, she has always struggled with the people talking about her mother that disappeared, she is known for writing stories and enjoys a horror film, she wants to investigate the haunted house and is fascinated by what she finds, even though she must do anything to protect her friends once she learns the evil involved. Most of this film Stella feels like a young Velma from Scooby Doo too, which can be hard to shake without realizing. Ramon Morales is a stranger in town, the police don’t take to him too kindly, but Stella sees him as a nice guy, it is slightly confusing trying to figure out how old he is and why he is hanging out with the high schoolers, but he does have a reason to be on the run. Auggie and Chuck are the two banter filled friends of Stella that do make the smart decisions when it comes to dealing with horror moments. Roy Nicholls is the father of Stella that has been struggling with his wife’s disappearance, which has seen him become distant from Stella too.
Performances – Zoe Margaret Colletti is great in the leading role, we see her give us a vulnerable, but strong character that needs to break out of her shell. Michael Garza is strong through the film, playing the mysterious stranger, needing to keep a lot of his secrets close to his chest. Gabriel Rush and Austin Zajur have great chemistry and the friends, while Dean Norris doesn’t do anything wrong, but does feel wasted at times.
Story – The story here follows a group of teenagers that find a book that tells scary stories that come true with horrifying outcomes and they must figure out how to break the curse placed upon them. This does feel like a much darker version of a Goosebumps set of stories, with each horror figure being terrifying in their own right, which will lead to an event that you don’t see coming. We do have the investigation side of the film which does answer the questions about what is going on and why, which as always is entertaining to watch in a horror and with everything adding up nicely we will be left with a story that flows smoothly throughout.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from the different creations of horror, for the most part the trailer does show us each of the creations involved in the film, the mystery plays into why the horror events are happening and just what Sarah is making this happen.
Settings – The film is set in a small town, where everybody knows everyone, which does play into the idea that the stories around the town can destroy reputations and feelings.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are used to make the horror creatures seem more terrifying where they look like practical effects too, which is a delight to see.
Scene of the Movie – Chuck’s visit.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The trailer gives away all of the horror figures.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun horror film that is filled with scary figures that will fill you with dread as they are original creations and will surprise with what happens to the characters.
Overall: Fun Dark Horror.
Story: Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark starts with the backdrop of the Richard Nixon election, where high school students Stella (Colletti), Auggie (Rush) and Chuck (Zajur) look to get revenge on the school bully, which sees them stumble into stranger’s Ramon (Garza) car on Halloween which sees them head to a haunted house that has the story about the daughter of the family Sarah Bellows, writing scary stories for the local kids that soon went missing.
When Stella finds the story book she starts to investigate the stories, only to see the stories writing themselves with the locals starting to go missing, including her friends, Stella must investigate the myth about Sarah to stop the people she loves going missing.
Thoughts on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
Characters – Stella is an outsider at her school, she has always struggled with the people talking about her mother that disappeared, she is known for writing stories and enjoys a horror film, she wants to investigate the haunted house and is fascinated by what she finds, even though she must do anything to protect her friends once she learns the evil involved. Most of this film Stella feels like a young Velma from Scooby Doo too, which can be hard to shake without realizing. Ramon Morales is a stranger in town, the police don’t take to him too kindly, but Stella sees him as a nice guy, it is slightly confusing trying to figure out how old he is and why he is hanging out with the high schoolers, but he does have a reason to be on the run. Auggie and Chuck are the two banter filled friends of Stella that do make the smart decisions when it comes to dealing with horror moments. Roy Nicholls is the father of Stella that has been struggling with his wife’s disappearance, which has seen him become distant from Stella too.
Performances – Zoe Margaret Colletti is great in the leading role, we see her give us a vulnerable, but strong character that needs to break out of her shell. Michael Garza is strong through the film, playing the mysterious stranger, needing to keep a lot of his secrets close to his chest. Gabriel Rush and Austin Zajur have great chemistry and the friends, while Dean Norris doesn’t do anything wrong, but does feel wasted at times.
Story – The story here follows a group of teenagers that find a book that tells scary stories that come true with horrifying outcomes and they must figure out how to break the curse placed upon them. This does feel like a much darker version of a Goosebumps set of stories, with each horror figure being terrifying in their own right, which will lead to an event that you don’t see coming. We do have the investigation side of the film which does answer the questions about what is going on and why, which as always is entertaining to watch in a horror and with everything adding up nicely we will be left with a story that flows smoothly throughout.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from the different creations of horror, for the most part the trailer does show us each of the creations involved in the film, the mystery plays into why the horror events are happening and just what Sarah is making this happen.
Settings – The film is set in a small town, where everybody knows everyone, which does play into the idea that the stories around the town can destroy reputations and feelings.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are used to make the horror creatures seem more terrifying where they look like practical effects too, which is a delight to see.
Scene of the Movie – Chuck’s visit.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The trailer gives away all of the horror figures.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun horror film that is filled with scary figures that will fill you with dread as they are original creations and will surprise with what happens to the characters.
Overall: Fun Dark Horror.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Needful Things (1993) in Movies
Aug 29, 2019
Verdict: One of King’s Most Interesting Stories
Story: Needful Things starts when Leland Gaunt (von Sydow) opens up an antique shop in the small town of Castle Rock, the shop known as Needful Things, see the locals visit, with them getting an unusually attachment to certain items in the shop, items that are clearly meant for each individual person, one that strikes a memory.
As the town starts flocking to the shop, it becomes clear that Leland has alternate plans for the town, with Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Harris) needing to investigate a new increase amount of small crimes, which slowly start to build in seriousness before the town turns to chaos.
Thoughts on Needful Things
Characters – Leland Gaunt is the mysterious shopkeeper that arrives to Castle Rock, his shop has everything the people of the town want and he knows everything about everyone in the town. He trades their desires for favours, which mostly involve going against people in the town, he knows how to remain calm through the conversations, knowing just what they want to hear. Sheriff Alan Pangborn left the big city for a quiet life, he is enjoying his life in the town, with his new fiancée, until the crime levels start to rise, which sees him going from dealing with cats in trees, to murders, can he stop the power Leland has over the town before it is too late. Polly is Alan’s fiancée, she runs the local diner opposite the new shop, she doesn’t run in like some of the other residents, which sees her witnessing the changes from the locals. Nettie is a shy former abuse victim that becomes one of the first customers of the shop, showing how easily people can like what he is willing to offer. We do get a string of people that start to get caught in his ideas.
Performances – Max von Sydow is wonderful to watch in this film, he gives the character the mystery and charisma he needs to seem like a friendly person. Ed Harris is always good to watch, here he does the small town cop routine with ease, playing a good man who must help his people. Bennie Bedelia is strong without getting enough important early scenes to make us understand how disturbed her character’s life is.
Story – The story here follows a small town that gets a new visitor in a shopkeeper that soon starts giving the locals everything they ever wanted, for a price, which sees the town turn to chaos and the sheriff needing to solve the problem before it is too late. This is one of the most interesting of the Stephen King stories, it looks at human desires taking control over our own sanity, how one town can be turned upside down by the ideas of what could be ours, rather than giving us what we need. The story is shown to unfold at a delightful pace because it shows how the deals are put in place with each deal, slowly starting to growing from disruptive behaviour right up to murder. The story does rely on the idea of town working together to prove themselves.
Fantasy/Horror – The fantasy side of the film shows just how Leland can bring about whatever the person in the town wants, he can make the impossible, possible, which only plays into the horrors of just what he can do to this world, when people get everything they ever wanted.
Settings – The film is set in the small town of Castle Rock, this is one location where everybody knows each other, which is one of the trademarks for any Stephen King novel.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are very simple, they do play into the idea of fantasy elements, when we see just what will happen with the power given to the people.
Scene of the Movie – He is a monster.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel like it could have gone a lot darker.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the more underrated of Stephen King’s adaptions, it gives us a perfect moral dilemma and keeps everything feel a lot more grounded for a horror one.
Overall: Entertaining throughout.
Story: Needful Things starts when Leland Gaunt (von Sydow) opens up an antique shop in the small town of Castle Rock, the shop known as Needful Things, see the locals visit, with them getting an unusually attachment to certain items in the shop, items that are clearly meant for each individual person, one that strikes a memory.
As the town starts flocking to the shop, it becomes clear that Leland has alternate plans for the town, with Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Harris) needing to investigate a new increase amount of small crimes, which slowly start to build in seriousness before the town turns to chaos.
Thoughts on Needful Things
Characters – Leland Gaunt is the mysterious shopkeeper that arrives to Castle Rock, his shop has everything the people of the town want and he knows everything about everyone in the town. He trades their desires for favours, which mostly involve going against people in the town, he knows how to remain calm through the conversations, knowing just what they want to hear. Sheriff Alan Pangborn left the big city for a quiet life, he is enjoying his life in the town, with his new fiancée, until the crime levels start to rise, which sees him going from dealing with cats in trees, to murders, can he stop the power Leland has over the town before it is too late. Polly is Alan’s fiancée, she runs the local diner opposite the new shop, she doesn’t run in like some of the other residents, which sees her witnessing the changes from the locals. Nettie is a shy former abuse victim that becomes one of the first customers of the shop, showing how easily people can like what he is willing to offer. We do get a string of people that start to get caught in his ideas.
Performances – Max von Sydow is wonderful to watch in this film, he gives the character the mystery and charisma he needs to seem like a friendly person. Ed Harris is always good to watch, here he does the small town cop routine with ease, playing a good man who must help his people. Bennie Bedelia is strong without getting enough important early scenes to make us understand how disturbed her character’s life is.
Story – The story here follows a small town that gets a new visitor in a shopkeeper that soon starts giving the locals everything they ever wanted, for a price, which sees the town turn to chaos and the sheriff needing to solve the problem before it is too late. This is one of the most interesting of the Stephen King stories, it looks at human desires taking control over our own sanity, how one town can be turned upside down by the ideas of what could be ours, rather than giving us what we need. The story is shown to unfold at a delightful pace because it shows how the deals are put in place with each deal, slowly starting to growing from disruptive behaviour right up to murder. The story does rely on the idea of town working together to prove themselves.
Fantasy/Horror – The fantasy side of the film shows just how Leland can bring about whatever the person in the town wants, he can make the impossible, possible, which only plays into the horrors of just what he can do to this world, when people get everything they ever wanted.
Settings – The film is set in the small town of Castle Rock, this is one location where everybody knows each other, which is one of the trademarks for any Stephen King novel.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are very simple, they do play into the idea of fantasy elements, when we see just what will happen with the power given to the people.
Scene of the Movie – He is a monster.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel like it could have gone a lot darker.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the more underrated of Stephen King’s adaptions, it gives us a perfect moral dilemma and keeps everything feel a lot more grounded for a horror one.
Overall: Entertaining throughout.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Bear faced brilliance.
I never went to see “Paddington 2” at the cinema when it came out. Well, it’s a kids film isn’t it? And my grandkids I thought… well, their probably a bit too young for the long haul on this one. But – after catching up with it recently on a transatlantic flight – I’m sorry I missed it. For it is brilliant in its own way.
Having not seen the first “Paddington”, also directed by Paul King, there is a useful little flashback to the Peruvian origins of the little chap before we pitch into the plot proper. Paddington (voiced by Ben Wishaw, “Spectre“) has nicely settled down to life with The Brown’s in their London home and is a well-loved member of the community (well, well loved that is by everyone except the cranky Mr Curry (Peter Capaldi, “Dr Who“, “World War Z“). But he longs to buy his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton, “Finding Your Feet“) a special birthday present – a pop-up book of London scenes that he’s seen in a local antique shop. But for that he needs a lot of cash, and so proceeds to earn it through a variety of different jobs.
However, fading actor Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) also shows an unhealty interest in the book and, after it disappears from the shop with Paddington’s paw prints all over the scene, the poor bear finds himself on the wrong side of the law.
This is a continually inventive movie, which rockets along with truly impressive verve and panache from scene to scene. As a particular example of this, an animated walk through the pop-up book is marvellously done: a tribute to the 2D retro nature (even in those days!) of the TV animation of the 70’s that will go over the heads of younger viewers. There are plenty of slapstick scenes – notably of Paddington trying window cleaning, and his job in a barber’s shop – which will not only delight younger children but also made this 57 year old laugh out loud too! The prison sequence also delights, with a laundry blunder by the bear leading into a comical showdown with the prison’s chief poisoner, sorry, head chef played by Brendan Gleeson (“Alone in Berlin“, “Live By Night“).
Vision AND sound! Paddington with incarcerated friends, including Brendan Gleeson (centre).
The cast all seem to revel in their parts, with Hugh Bonneville (“Viceroy’s House“, “The Monuments Men“) energetic as Mr Brown and Oscar runner-up (surely!) Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water“) very chirpy as Mrs Brown. All of the residents of Windsor Gardens are a who’s who of UK film and TV, and each cameo has a lovely little tale behind it: Julie Walters (“Brooklyn“) as Mrs Bird, the Brown’s help; Sanjeev Bhaskar as Dr Jafri, forever nearly locking himself out; Miss Kitts (Jessica Hynes) and the crusty Colonel Lancaster (Ben Miller) in a ‘will they/won’t they’ potential romance. Elsewhere, Jim Broadbent (“Bridget Jones Baby“, “Eddie the Eagle“) is great as the antique store owner; Tom Conti adds both gravitas and humour as Judge Biggleswade and Richard Ayoade (“The Double“) is very funny as a forensic expert.
The Brown family: from left; Mr Brown (Hugh Bonneville); Jonathan (Samuel Joslin); Mrs Brown (Sally Hawkins); Mrs Bird (Julie Walters); and Judy Brown (Madeleine Harris).
Head and shoulders above all of them though is Hugh Grant who is just outstandingly good as the puffed-up and self-important ham-actor. His Best Supporting Actor nomination for a BAFTA was surprising, but having seen the film so very much deserved. Hang around in the end credits for his last words of the film which are cornily hilarious! One can only hope that Phoenix Buchanen returns for Paddington 3.
A career best… Hugh Grant as the devilishly slippery Phoenix Buchanan.
I would have thought that some of the scenes towards the end of the film, particularly one where Paddington seems doomed to a watery end, might be a little frightening for younger viewers. Thank heavens Sally Hawkins has gills! 🙂
Overall, this is a movie I would gladly watch again, with or without kids. In a movie landscape that is pretty devoid of good comedy, here is a movie that really did make me laugh out loud.
Having not seen the first “Paddington”, also directed by Paul King, there is a useful little flashback to the Peruvian origins of the little chap before we pitch into the plot proper. Paddington (voiced by Ben Wishaw, “Spectre“) has nicely settled down to life with The Brown’s in their London home and is a well-loved member of the community (well, well loved that is by everyone except the cranky Mr Curry (Peter Capaldi, “Dr Who“, “World War Z“). But he longs to buy his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton, “Finding Your Feet“) a special birthday present – a pop-up book of London scenes that he’s seen in a local antique shop. But for that he needs a lot of cash, and so proceeds to earn it through a variety of different jobs.
However, fading actor Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) also shows an unhealty interest in the book and, after it disappears from the shop with Paddington’s paw prints all over the scene, the poor bear finds himself on the wrong side of the law.
This is a continually inventive movie, which rockets along with truly impressive verve and panache from scene to scene. As a particular example of this, an animated walk through the pop-up book is marvellously done: a tribute to the 2D retro nature (even in those days!) of the TV animation of the 70’s that will go over the heads of younger viewers. There are plenty of slapstick scenes – notably of Paddington trying window cleaning, and his job in a barber’s shop – which will not only delight younger children but also made this 57 year old laugh out loud too! The prison sequence also delights, with a laundry blunder by the bear leading into a comical showdown with the prison’s chief poisoner, sorry, head chef played by Brendan Gleeson (“Alone in Berlin“, “Live By Night“).
Vision AND sound! Paddington with incarcerated friends, including Brendan Gleeson (centre).
The cast all seem to revel in their parts, with Hugh Bonneville (“Viceroy’s House“, “The Monuments Men“) energetic as Mr Brown and Oscar runner-up (surely!) Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water“) very chirpy as Mrs Brown. All of the residents of Windsor Gardens are a who’s who of UK film and TV, and each cameo has a lovely little tale behind it: Julie Walters (“Brooklyn“) as Mrs Bird, the Brown’s help; Sanjeev Bhaskar as Dr Jafri, forever nearly locking himself out; Miss Kitts (Jessica Hynes) and the crusty Colonel Lancaster (Ben Miller) in a ‘will they/won’t they’ potential romance. Elsewhere, Jim Broadbent (“Bridget Jones Baby“, “Eddie the Eagle“) is great as the antique store owner; Tom Conti adds both gravitas and humour as Judge Biggleswade and Richard Ayoade (“The Double“) is very funny as a forensic expert.
The Brown family: from left; Mr Brown (Hugh Bonneville); Jonathan (Samuel Joslin); Mrs Brown (Sally Hawkins); Mrs Bird (Julie Walters); and Judy Brown (Madeleine Harris).
Head and shoulders above all of them though is Hugh Grant who is just outstandingly good as the puffed-up and self-important ham-actor. His Best Supporting Actor nomination for a BAFTA was surprising, but having seen the film so very much deserved. Hang around in the end credits for his last words of the film which are cornily hilarious! One can only hope that Phoenix Buchanen returns for Paddington 3.
A career best… Hugh Grant as the devilishly slippery Phoenix Buchanan.
I would have thought that some of the scenes towards the end of the film, particularly one where Paddington seems doomed to a watery end, might be a little frightening for younger viewers. Thank heavens Sally Hawkins has gills! 🙂
Overall, this is a movie I would gladly watch again, with or without kids. In a movie landscape that is pretty devoid of good comedy, here is a movie that really did make me laugh out loud.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A robot you could take home to meet mother.
I was intrigued to watch the other day (purely for the interest in the technology employed of course!) a short Guardian video on the development of the world’s first fully functioning sex robot: a disturbing watch, requiring a fairly broad mind. Watching it on the same day as going to see Scarlett Johansson’s new film “Ghost in the Shell” though was a mistake, since the similarities between Johansson’s character (‘Major’) and the animatronic sex doll (‘Harmony’) were… erm… distracting.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Night in Soho (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Edgar Wright’s Haunting Love Letter to the Swinging Sixties.
A young 21st-century teen walks in her nightclothes down a darkened alley emerging into a bustling 60’s Soho street across from a theatre showing “Thunderball”. She enters the Cafe de Paris with a reflection mimicking her actions but showing a very different girl. So it was that the trailer for Edgar Wright’s “Last Night in Soho” hit earlier this year.
The trailer grabbed me by the gut and firmly cemented it as a “must see” in my movie-watching schedule. Frustratingly, Covid got in my way. But now free of the wretched virus, this had just HAD be my first outing.
Plot Summary:
Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie) is a Cornish teen whose fashion and music tastes are firmly rooted in the ’60s. She is also blessed (or plagued) with having visions of people who’ve passed, including her dead mother.
Travelling to a London fashion school, Eloise is a lost soul in a raucous world. But at night, she is mystically transported back to the swinging 60’s into the body of aspiring singer Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy). Sandie is under the thrall of ‘manager’ Jack (Matt Smith), and Eloise witnesses events that she needs to tell people about. But who would possibly believe such a tale?
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Thomasin McKenzie, Anya Taylor-Joy, Matt Smith, Terence Stamp, Diana Rigg.
Directed by: Edgar Wright.
Written by: Krysty Wilson-Cairns (based on a story by Edgar Wright).
“Last Night in Soho” Review: Positives:
This is SUCH a tour de force of filmmaking. Honestly, there were moments in here, particularly in the first half of the movie, where I was beaming from ear to ear at the audacity of it all. That ‘time travel’ reveal is even better in ‘the flesh’ than it was in the trailer, enhanced by the vibrant cinematography of Chung-hoon Chung.
Thomasin McKensie again impressed me immensely. She was of course the ‘girl in the attic’ from “Jojo Rabbit” and the best thing in the lacklustre M. Night Shyamalan feature “Old“. Anya Taylor-Joy is as spectacular as you would expect and Matt Smith also delivers, although I wasn’t completely convinced by Smith’s cockney accent. And what a wonderful thing to watch veteran actors Terence Stamp and Diana RIgg strut their stuff on the big screen. (This was Rigg’s final screen performance, and the film is dedicated to her: “For Diana”. RIP Ms Rigg.)
The combination of ‘in camera’ and special effects here are gob-smackingly effective. Some of the ‘mirror’ effects involving Eloise, Sandie and Jack in the club are gleeful. And I’m not sure how they were all done. And a dance sequence where Eloise switches to Sandie and back again is just so clever.
The Production Design is just brilliant. It oozes a combination of 60’s style and sleaze. Surely an Oscar nomination is due here.
As with other Edgar Wright movies (like “Baby Driver“) the choice of music is superb. The score is by Oscar winning composer Steven Price, but you can be sure that Wright was heavily involved in the track selections. These prominently feature a Cilla Black track – heralded by 15 string beats of total perfection – that is in my top 5 songs from the 60’s. And Anya Taylor-Joy’s haunting version of “Downtown” is just superb.
Acting Royalty…. Diana Rigg in her last role, and….
Negatives:
The second half of the film just doesn’t *quite* live up to the promise of the first half (which was running as a clear 5*s).
While the inevitable twist in the tale is clever (and unexpected), I thought it was rather clumsily introduced. (I can’t go into details without introducing spoilers, but an envelope is involved). Something more subliminal would have been my preference; something that you would have had to watch the film again to catch.
A stunning starring role for Thomasin McKenzie. Just wonderful.
Summary Thoughts on “Last Night in Soho”
I loved this one. It lived up to my expectations, and came close to “classic status”. I need to give this careful consideration as to where this sits in my “Top 10 Films of the Year”, but it is undoubtedly up there in the list.
Highly recommended, if you are content to stomach some violent (and quite disturbing) horror imagery.
The trailer grabbed me by the gut and firmly cemented it as a “must see” in my movie-watching schedule. Frustratingly, Covid got in my way. But now free of the wretched virus, this had just HAD be my first outing.
Plot Summary:
Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie) is a Cornish teen whose fashion and music tastes are firmly rooted in the ’60s. She is also blessed (or plagued) with having visions of people who’ve passed, including her dead mother.
Travelling to a London fashion school, Eloise is a lost soul in a raucous world. But at night, she is mystically transported back to the swinging 60’s into the body of aspiring singer Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy). Sandie is under the thrall of ‘manager’ Jack (Matt Smith), and Eloise witnesses events that she needs to tell people about. But who would possibly believe such a tale?
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Thomasin McKenzie, Anya Taylor-Joy, Matt Smith, Terence Stamp, Diana Rigg.
Directed by: Edgar Wright.
Written by: Krysty Wilson-Cairns (based on a story by Edgar Wright).
“Last Night in Soho” Review: Positives:
This is SUCH a tour de force of filmmaking. Honestly, there were moments in here, particularly in the first half of the movie, where I was beaming from ear to ear at the audacity of it all. That ‘time travel’ reveal is even better in ‘the flesh’ than it was in the trailer, enhanced by the vibrant cinematography of Chung-hoon Chung.
Thomasin McKensie again impressed me immensely. She was of course the ‘girl in the attic’ from “Jojo Rabbit” and the best thing in the lacklustre M. Night Shyamalan feature “Old“. Anya Taylor-Joy is as spectacular as you would expect and Matt Smith also delivers, although I wasn’t completely convinced by Smith’s cockney accent. And what a wonderful thing to watch veteran actors Terence Stamp and Diana RIgg strut their stuff on the big screen. (This was Rigg’s final screen performance, and the film is dedicated to her: “For Diana”. RIP Ms Rigg.)
The combination of ‘in camera’ and special effects here are gob-smackingly effective. Some of the ‘mirror’ effects involving Eloise, Sandie and Jack in the club are gleeful. And I’m not sure how they were all done. And a dance sequence where Eloise switches to Sandie and back again is just so clever.
The Production Design is just brilliant. It oozes a combination of 60’s style and sleaze. Surely an Oscar nomination is due here.
As with other Edgar Wright movies (like “Baby Driver“) the choice of music is superb. The score is by Oscar winning composer Steven Price, but you can be sure that Wright was heavily involved in the track selections. These prominently feature a Cilla Black track – heralded by 15 string beats of total perfection – that is in my top 5 songs from the 60’s. And Anya Taylor-Joy’s haunting version of “Downtown” is just superb.
Acting Royalty…. Diana Rigg in her last role, and….
Negatives:
The second half of the film just doesn’t *quite* live up to the promise of the first half (which was running as a clear 5*s).
While the inevitable twist in the tale is clever (and unexpected), I thought it was rather clumsily introduced. (I can’t go into details without introducing spoilers, but an envelope is involved). Something more subliminal would have been my preference; something that you would have had to watch the film again to catch.
A stunning starring role for Thomasin McKenzie. Just wonderful.
Summary Thoughts on “Last Night in Soho”
I loved this one. It lived up to my expectations, and came close to “classic status”. I need to give this careful consideration as to where this sits in my “Top 10 Films of the Year”, but it is undoubtedly up there in the list.
Highly recommended, if you are content to stomach some violent (and quite disturbing) horror imagery.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated You Said You Could Draw in Tabletop Games
Apr 23, 2021
Excuse me, title of game, but I NEVER said I could draw. Is it just me or does nearly everyone feel the need to preface every drawing game with a declaration that they are horrible artists and will probably perform disastrously? I have found this to be the case, as least for myself and about 90%+ of the people with whom I play, and it is especially rampant with the tongue-out drawers in the world. But we all still enjoy the old favorites like Pictionary and Win, Lose, or Draw! How about if we add another gimmick to these classics in order to turn the games on their ears? Enter You Said You Could Draw.
In You Said You Could Draw (I will just acronymize to YSYCD) players are attempting to win the game by scoring the most points. The provided score board has space for each player to earn 20 points, though agreements could be made by players to stop at any number of points.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give an idea of how the game is played. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign launching May 8, 2021, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup a game of YSYCD place the score board anywhere on the table and players choose which color board they wish to represent themselves. Players are also given a dry erase marker. The large deck of cards is placed somewhere near the score board, along with the blindfold. Players will roll the die to determine the first player, and the game may now begin!
YSYCD is played in turns until a player reaches the aforementioned ending score. On a turn a player will draw a card, roll the die, then draw. On each card is a list of six prompts to be drawn by the player and the result of the die roll determines which prompt the player must draw. Once the player is ready they will don the blindfold and begin drawing on the large board. When the masterpieces is complete the artist will write the name of the player they believe will guess correctly. Both the drawing process and the name writing are secret – no lookyloos! When the artist reveals their labor each player will secretly write their guess on their player boards, to be revealed simultaneously once all players have finished. The artist reveals their choice and the other players reveal their hilarious guesses. Points may now be awarded.
The artist will receive one point if at least one player has guessed correctly, with a bonus one point earned if the player they wrote on their board guessed correctly. Each player who guessed the prompt correctly also scores one point. If ALL players guess correctly except for one lonely player, the lonely player will earn a painful NEGATIVE two ( -2 ) points!
Players will notice that one prompt on each side of the card includes a star icon. Should this prompt be rolled for the turn the points awarded for the artists and correct guessers are three, versus the typical one. Play continues in this fashion until a player has reached the agreed score threshold and claims victory!
Components. This game boasts two large and eight smaller dry erase boards with eight dry erase markers. The boards are fine, but the markers (at least in this prototype version) are very low quality, especially the erasers. We resorted to using napkins for our erasing needs, as they did not smear as much. The 1d6 is fine, and the blindfold is very comfortable (thank you, JPN Games!). The cards are fine quality and there are 100 double-sided cards, offering 1200 prompt options to draw! I normally also cover art direction and theming here, but there is very little art, with most of it on the box cover. The box cover in this version features two players having a great time playing the game in a color VERY close to our logo’s Volt color. So I’m a fan of that for sure.
The rulebook is a simple folded cardstock that could easily become a duplexed sheet of paper or stock. The rules are incredibly simple to learn and teach, which makes this a great entry for families.
I recently broke this one out to play with my brother-in-law, his wife, and their twin 10-year-old children. When I say that it has been a long time since I laughed so hard while playing games, I certainly mean it. Most drawing games favor the talented artists of the group, but YSYCD offers the great equalizer – that blindfold. Sure, someone could be able to draw an excellent Sonic the Hedgehog (not a sponsor), but once you take away the spacial awareness drawing becomes a lot more difficult. And having a 10-year-old look into your eyes and tell you they drew a Chef instead of your guess of Quasimodo makes for a very interesting adult-child dynamic.
All in all I have had a great time with this game. The blindfold is what makes this special, and rolling the die to select the prompt causes each player to begin their turns on the same artistry level as their opponents. I dig that. A lot. I will be honest here – this is not a game that I would see at a store and be interested in buying or playing. But I gave it a shot with the family and I now have a party game that differs from my other party games in my collection and I am all the happier for it. You Said You Could Draw is not for the hard core gamer. It is for the gamer who needs a break from the brain burning and is able to relax a bit and have fun – even at their own expense. If this sounds interesting to you, I urge you to check out the Kickstarter campaign, launching May 8, 2021. Pick up a copy or two or twelve and give some away. The holidays are always just around the corner. Also, be warned that some children cannot accept that their Chef looks like Quasimodo. I learned this the hard way.
In You Said You Could Draw (I will just acronymize to YSYCD) players are attempting to win the game by scoring the most points. The provided score board has space for each player to earn 20 points, though agreements could be made by players to stop at any number of points.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give an idea of how the game is played. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign launching May 8, 2021, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup a game of YSYCD place the score board anywhere on the table and players choose which color board they wish to represent themselves. Players are also given a dry erase marker. The large deck of cards is placed somewhere near the score board, along with the blindfold. Players will roll the die to determine the first player, and the game may now begin!
YSYCD is played in turns until a player reaches the aforementioned ending score. On a turn a player will draw a card, roll the die, then draw. On each card is a list of six prompts to be drawn by the player and the result of the die roll determines which prompt the player must draw. Once the player is ready they will don the blindfold and begin drawing on the large board. When the masterpieces is complete the artist will write the name of the player they believe will guess correctly. Both the drawing process and the name writing are secret – no lookyloos! When the artist reveals their labor each player will secretly write their guess on their player boards, to be revealed simultaneously once all players have finished. The artist reveals their choice and the other players reveal their hilarious guesses. Points may now be awarded.
The artist will receive one point if at least one player has guessed correctly, with a bonus one point earned if the player they wrote on their board guessed correctly. Each player who guessed the prompt correctly also scores one point. If ALL players guess correctly except for one lonely player, the lonely player will earn a painful NEGATIVE two ( -2 ) points!
Players will notice that one prompt on each side of the card includes a star icon. Should this prompt be rolled for the turn the points awarded for the artists and correct guessers are three, versus the typical one. Play continues in this fashion until a player has reached the agreed score threshold and claims victory!
Components. This game boasts two large and eight smaller dry erase boards with eight dry erase markers. The boards are fine, but the markers (at least in this prototype version) are very low quality, especially the erasers. We resorted to using napkins for our erasing needs, as they did not smear as much. The 1d6 is fine, and the blindfold is very comfortable (thank you, JPN Games!). The cards are fine quality and there are 100 double-sided cards, offering 1200 prompt options to draw! I normally also cover art direction and theming here, but there is very little art, with most of it on the box cover. The box cover in this version features two players having a great time playing the game in a color VERY close to our logo’s Volt color. So I’m a fan of that for sure.
The rulebook is a simple folded cardstock that could easily become a duplexed sheet of paper or stock. The rules are incredibly simple to learn and teach, which makes this a great entry for families.
I recently broke this one out to play with my brother-in-law, his wife, and their twin 10-year-old children. When I say that it has been a long time since I laughed so hard while playing games, I certainly mean it. Most drawing games favor the talented artists of the group, but YSYCD offers the great equalizer – that blindfold. Sure, someone could be able to draw an excellent Sonic the Hedgehog (not a sponsor), but once you take away the spacial awareness drawing becomes a lot more difficult. And having a 10-year-old look into your eyes and tell you they drew a Chef instead of your guess of Quasimodo makes for a very interesting adult-child dynamic.
All in all I have had a great time with this game. The blindfold is what makes this special, and rolling the die to select the prompt causes each player to begin their turns on the same artistry level as their opponents. I dig that. A lot. I will be honest here – this is not a game that I would see at a store and be interested in buying or playing. But I gave it a shot with the family and I now have a party game that differs from my other party games in my collection and I am all the happier for it. You Said You Could Draw is not for the hard core gamer. It is for the gamer who needs a break from the brain burning and is able to relax a bit and have fun – even at their own expense. If this sounds interesting to you, I urge you to check out the Kickstarter campaign, launching May 8, 2021. Pick up a copy or two or twelve and give some away. The holidays are always just around the corner. Also, be warned that some children cannot accept that their Chef looks like Quasimodo. I learned this the hard way.
