Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
Adventure and Redemption
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth?</i> This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, <i>Gospels</i>. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore <i>Gospels</i> is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled <i>Gospels</i>, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, <i>Gospels</i> is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Third time lucky?
The X-Men franchise is as convoluted as Spaghetti Junction. Littered with constantly changing timelines, it has become the epitome of tiring and fans are getting exasperated too. With every great film (X2, X-Men: Days of Future Past), the series has followed it with some truly awful movies (X-Men: Origins Wolverine, X-Men: Apocalypse).
To this end, Hugh Jackman has finally decided to hang up his Adamantium claws after Logan, his ninth and apparently final outing as the grizzly hero. Are we third time lucky for his solo films?
James Mangold, director of The Wolverine, returns to the director’s chair and helms an at times brutal and uncompromising film speckled with the sort of emotional heft you’d find in the saddest rom-com’s.
In the near future, a weary Logan (Hugh Jackman) cares for an ailing Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) in a hide out on the Mexican border accompanied by long-time acquaintance Caliban (Stephen Merchant). But Logan’s attempts to hide from the world and his legacy are upended when a young mutant, Laura, (Dafne Keen) arrives, being pursued by unspeakable dark forces.
In parts, Logan feels very much like a Western. The bleak, unforgiving Mexican landscape is a beautiful change from the dreary concrete jungles that blight the majority of superhero films these days and this is where Logan will either succeed or fail. It doesn’t feel like a superhero film, despite its faithfulness to the Old Man Logan comics.
Much like a metaphor for the genre itself, Logan has grown weary of the world and it is a testament to Hugh Jackman’s acting capabilities that he is able to add yet another dimension to a character that has been a cinema staple since the Millennium. Patrick Stewart is also on top form showing a vulnerable side to the world’s smartest mutant. Newcomer, Dafne Keen is also exceptional despite her limited dialogue.
Heartfelt scenes in which the oddball family share dinner with kind strangers are strikingly juxtaposed with sequences of sheer brutality. If you thought Deadpool was bloody, you haven’t seen anything yet. And for all the violence, Logan is the most poignant film in the entire X-Men canon, wearing its 15 certification proudly when it needs to, but not shying away from sections of quiet contemplation.
Negatives? Well, in spite of its gargantuan length, the ending feels a little tacked on and rushed – something a lot of modern blockbusters seem to feel is necessary at the moment and the final 30 minutes are a slight anti-climax in comparison to what preceded it, but on the whole, this final outing for Hugh Jackman proves a fitting one. Third time’s a charm!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/03/third-time-lucky-logan-review/
To this end, Hugh Jackman has finally decided to hang up his Adamantium claws after Logan, his ninth and apparently final outing as the grizzly hero. Are we third time lucky for his solo films?
James Mangold, director of The Wolverine, returns to the director’s chair and helms an at times brutal and uncompromising film speckled with the sort of emotional heft you’d find in the saddest rom-com’s.
In the near future, a weary Logan (Hugh Jackman) cares for an ailing Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) in a hide out on the Mexican border accompanied by long-time acquaintance Caliban (Stephen Merchant). But Logan’s attempts to hide from the world and his legacy are upended when a young mutant, Laura, (Dafne Keen) arrives, being pursued by unspeakable dark forces.
In parts, Logan feels very much like a Western. The bleak, unforgiving Mexican landscape is a beautiful change from the dreary concrete jungles that blight the majority of superhero films these days and this is where Logan will either succeed or fail. It doesn’t feel like a superhero film, despite its faithfulness to the Old Man Logan comics.
Much like a metaphor for the genre itself, Logan has grown weary of the world and it is a testament to Hugh Jackman’s acting capabilities that he is able to add yet another dimension to a character that has been a cinema staple since the Millennium. Patrick Stewart is also on top form showing a vulnerable side to the world’s smartest mutant. Newcomer, Dafne Keen is also exceptional despite her limited dialogue.
Heartfelt scenes in which the oddball family share dinner with kind strangers are strikingly juxtaposed with sequences of sheer brutality. If you thought Deadpool was bloody, you haven’t seen anything yet. And for all the violence, Logan is the most poignant film in the entire X-Men canon, wearing its 15 certification proudly when it needs to, but not shying away from sections of quiet contemplation.
Negatives? Well, in spite of its gargantuan length, the ending feels a little tacked on and rushed – something a lot of modern blockbusters seem to feel is necessary at the moment and the final 30 minutes are a slight anti-climax in comparison to what preceded it, but on the whole, this final outing for Hugh Jackman proves a fitting one. Third time’s a charm!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/03/third-time-lucky-logan-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 7, 2019
Hader steals the film
The "secret sauce" of the first chapter of IT (based on the horror novel by Stephen King) was NOT the gore or scares that were thrown at the audience, it was the characters and the performances that made that first film work. The young members of the "Loser's Club" - and especially the young actors populating these characters - created people that you wanted to root and cheer for throughout their ordeal with Pennywise the Clown and the bullies of Derry.
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Tomorrow (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
The film had me at "brief strong sex" on the title card.
Tesla, a war veteran, struggles day to day being in the real world again. His loses weigh heavily on him and he hits rock bottom. A chance encounter with the over-friendly Sky leads him to new friends and new opportunities. Will he be able to see past his inner demons long enough to make a go of everything?
Firstly, someone at BBFC is leading a very sheltered life... moving on.
I had concerns going into this, Tomorrow was written by Stuart Brennan and Sebastian Street, if you're wondering why one of those sounds familiar it's because Stuart Brennan wrote Wolf (and directed, and produced and starred), I gave that 1.5 stars and I was one of the more generous viewers. You'll also spot the name Sebastian Street as he's playing the lead role of Tesla to Brennan's Sky.
I actually thought that Brennan did a great job as Sky. His storyline progressed at a much tougher rate than any of the other characters and his handling of it was surprisingly good.
Sebastian Street was in no way convincing. Tesla had an important point to make about disability and veterans but it felt more like he was acting in a bad soap opera than a film.
Unfortunately the downsides don't stop there, neither Stephanie Leonidas nor Sophie Kennedy Clark gave convincing portrayals, though I'm inclined to think that is more to do with the script. Tesla's love interest Katie, played by Leonidas, was a particularly hateful woman at times. I'm sure they were attempting to bring her on a learning curve about Tesla and his PTSD but there are moments that are entirely unbelievable. No one would be as oblivious as she was and I was genuinely annoyed by the fact he didn't tell her to take a hike then and there.
You'll also see on the cast list we have Stephen Fry, James Cosmo and Paul Kaye... I know! Cosmo gives a good performance but both Fry as Chris and Kaye as Milo felt like a let down. Neither character was well written and the tone really didn't fit the scenarios they were in. I have no idea why they went for the parts, I'm assuming bills.
While I felt there were a lot of issues with the film, many more than I listed, I was able to identify with part of the film and actually felt like they treated the subject with more respect than everything else was afforded. Because of that fact I'm giving Tomorrow a 2 star score, it deserves more than Wolf but I couldn't in good conscience recommend it to anyone. It's currently sitting at a 7 on IMDb which seems rather suspicious to me, the 29% on RT seems like a more accurate rating for this film.
What you should do
While I found something in this to latch onto there's not a lot to gain from seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've always wanted my own restaurant, so I'd have to go with that or Sky's adorable dog.
Tesla, a war veteran, struggles day to day being in the real world again. His loses weigh heavily on him and he hits rock bottom. A chance encounter with the over-friendly Sky leads him to new friends and new opportunities. Will he be able to see past his inner demons long enough to make a go of everything?
Firstly, someone at BBFC is leading a very sheltered life... moving on.
I had concerns going into this, Tomorrow was written by Stuart Brennan and Sebastian Street, if you're wondering why one of those sounds familiar it's because Stuart Brennan wrote Wolf (and directed, and produced and starred), I gave that 1.5 stars and I was one of the more generous viewers. You'll also spot the name Sebastian Street as he's playing the lead role of Tesla to Brennan's Sky.
I actually thought that Brennan did a great job as Sky. His storyline progressed at a much tougher rate than any of the other characters and his handling of it was surprisingly good.
Sebastian Street was in no way convincing. Tesla had an important point to make about disability and veterans but it felt more like he was acting in a bad soap opera than a film.
Unfortunately the downsides don't stop there, neither Stephanie Leonidas nor Sophie Kennedy Clark gave convincing portrayals, though I'm inclined to think that is more to do with the script. Tesla's love interest Katie, played by Leonidas, was a particularly hateful woman at times. I'm sure they were attempting to bring her on a learning curve about Tesla and his PTSD but there are moments that are entirely unbelievable. No one would be as oblivious as she was and I was genuinely annoyed by the fact he didn't tell her to take a hike then and there.
You'll also see on the cast list we have Stephen Fry, James Cosmo and Paul Kaye... I know! Cosmo gives a good performance but both Fry as Chris and Kaye as Milo felt like a let down. Neither character was well written and the tone really didn't fit the scenarios they were in. I have no idea why they went for the parts, I'm assuming bills.
While I felt there were a lot of issues with the film, many more than I listed, I was able to identify with part of the film and actually felt like they treated the subject with more respect than everything else was afforded. Because of that fact I'm giving Tomorrow a 2 star score, it deserves more than Wolf but I couldn't in good conscience recommend it to anyone. It's currently sitting at a 7 on IMDb which seems rather suspicious to me, the 29% on RT seems like a more accurate rating for this film.
What you should do
While I found something in this to latch onto there's not a lot to gain from seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've always wanted my own restaurant, so I'd have to go with that or Sky's adorable dog.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Into the Woods (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A charming adaptation
Wolves, witches and giants all appear in the film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s popular musical which takes all the best bits of our favourite fairytales and mashes them together in one engaging, song-filled rollercoaster.
However, musical movie adaptations are notoriously difficult to get right, from casting restraints to the inclusion of all the songs, transferring them to the silver screen is not something to be entered into lightly. So does director Rob Marhsall’s effort elevate itself above its peers?
Into the Woods has numerous plot threads that all end up coming together in one way or another, but the main storyline follows a baker (James Corden) and his wife, played gloriously by Emily Blunt, as they come to realise they cannot have a child.
Alas, a witch – who just so happens to live next door – has a way to provide them with what they want as long as they get a few items for her in the meantime.
An all-star cast including the likes of Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Johnny Depp and of course Meryl Streep all give their all in a film that is brimming with tantalising cinematography and stunning songs.
meryl-streep-into-the-woodsGenerally speaking, the female cast fares better in the singing portions of the film, although Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen had the audience in intentional fits of laughter in one particular sequence as two handsome Princes.
Unfortunately, Into the Wood’s greatest asset, its cast, is also its biggest undoing. Having so many story threads means that there isn’t any emotional attachment to the characters – despite the film’s numerous attempts to tug at the heartstrings.
Despite a deeply heartfelt performance of ‘Stay with Me’ from Meryl Streep, the film just steadily rolls itself from admittedly thrilling set piece to set piece without getting bogged down in nitty gritty character development.
Thankfully, the glorious cinematography that featured in the trailer continues throughout. An enclosed feeling makes you feel like you’re actually watching a stage show rather than a film, albeit one with a much higher budget, and this is one of its most captivating features.
Director Rob Marshall has managed to keep the pantomime feel despite the fact the audience is watching in a cinema – the locations are never overdone and everything feels nicely claustrophobic, adding to the eerie atmosphere.
However, the final act is unnecessarily long and its foray into deeper territory means the magic and sparkle is well and truly lost. This is a real shame as there are numerous moments where the film could end on a high, rather than delving into a murky and at times, incomprehensible final third.
Overall, Into the Woods is a charming adaptation of the popular musical and despite its slightly overlong running time and a disappointing final act, it manages to stay on course for a perfectly adequate, if underwhelming finale.
The entire cast have a ball with their characters with Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt being particular highlights throughout.
Parents beware however, its PG certification may be slightly too lenient for smaller children, who will no doubt be intrigued by the premise of combining our most-loved fairytales.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/17/a-charming-adaptation-into-the-woods-review/
However, musical movie adaptations are notoriously difficult to get right, from casting restraints to the inclusion of all the songs, transferring them to the silver screen is not something to be entered into lightly. So does director Rob Marhsall’s effort elevate itself above its peers?
Into the Woods has numerous plot threads that all end up coming together in one way or another, but the main storyline follows a baker (James Corden) and his wife, played gloriously by Emily Blunt, as they come to realise they cannot have a child.
Alas, a witch – who just so happens to live next door – has a way to provide them with what they want as long as they get a few items for her in the meantime.
An all-star cast including the likes of Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Johnny Depp and of course Meryl Streep all give their all in a film that is brimming with tantalising cinematography and stunning songs.
meryl-streep-into-the-woodsGenerally speaking, the female cast fares better in the singing portions of the film, although Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen had the audience in intentional fits of laughter in one particular sequence as two handsome Princes.
Unfortunately, Into the Wood’s greatest asset, its cast, is also its biggest undoing. Having so many story threads means that there isn’t any emotional attachment to the characters – despite the film’s numerous attempts to tug at the heartstrings.
Despite a deeply heartfelt performance of ‘Stay with Me’ from Meryl Streep, the film just steadily rolls itself from admittedly thrilling set piece to set piece without getting bogged down in nitty gritty character development.
Thankfully, the glorious cinematography that featured in the trailer continues throughout. An enclosed feeling makes you feel like you’re actually watching a stage show rather than a film, albeit one with a much higher budget, and this is one of its most captivating features.
Director Rob Marshall has managed to keep the pantomime feel despite the fact the audience is watching in a cinema – the locations are never overdone and everything feels nicely claustrophobic, adding to the eerie atmosphere.
However, the final act is unnecessarily long and its foray into deeper territory means the magic and sparkle is well and truly lost. This is a real shame as there are numerous moments where the film could end on a high, rather than delving into a murky and at times, incomprehensible final third.
Overall, Into the Woods is a charming adaptation of the popular musical and despite its slightly overlong running time and a disappointing final act, it manages to stay on course for a perfectly adequate, if underwhelming finale.
The entire cast have a ball with their characters with Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt being particular highlights throughout.
Parents beware however, its PG certification may be slightly too lenient for smaller children, who will no doubt be intrigued by the premise of combining our most-loved fairytales.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/17/a-charming-adaptation-into-the-woods-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Sting (1973) in Movies
Mar 29, 2020
On my list of All Time Favorite Films
I'll come right out and say it - the 1973 Academy Award winning film for Best Picture, THE STING, is one of the greatest films of all time. It's well written, well acted, well directed with a memorable musical score and characters, situations, costumes and set design that become richer over time and through repeated viewings.
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Into the Woods (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
For those seeking a big dose of magic this holiday season, Disney’s “Into the Woods” aims to deliver just that. Adapted to the silver screen from the original Broadway musical production by Stephen Sondheim, the plot intertwines several of the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales to create one story.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.