Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In that sleep of death, what dreams may come.
“Ghost Stories” is based on the spooky London West-End stage play by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman who both write and direct the film version. I didn’t know this until the end credits, but began to wonder in the final act where the action suddenly becomes very “stagey” in nature. The screenplay was always bound to be both bizarre and intriguing, since Dyson has been a past contributor to TV’s “League of Gentlemen” and other equally surreal programmes and Nyman has been a major collaborator with the stage-illusionist Derren Brown.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Power of the Dog (2021) in Movies
Dec 7, 2021
Deep and Layered
If the movie you are watching has a long shot of wheat blowing in the wind, then you are watching a character drama. If that same film also includes a 5 minute scene of someone braiding rope, then you have THE POWER OF THE DOG.
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Lilies of the Field (1963) in Movies
Jan 31, 2022
Strong Performances by Poitier and Skala
The film that Sidney Poitier won his Best Actor In A Leading Role Oscar for (becoming the first Black Man to do so) is the type of film that is rarely made these days - a simple film of love, faith, friendship and inspiration.
Written by James Poe from the Novel by William E. Barrett, LILIES OF THE FIELD tells the tale of a drifter who is the answer to a Nun’s prayer. Praying to the God that she believes in, she asks for help in getting a Church built in the desert in Arizona.
Simply Directed by Ralph Nelson (fresh off his success with REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT), Lilies of the Field is a positive life (and faith) affirming film from start to finish that will touch your heart…and your soul.
Poitier stars as handyman Homer Smith who’s car breaks down where a group of Nuns are trying to start a parish (and get a church built). Following the machinations of Mother Maria (Lilia Skala - in an Oscar nominated turn of her own), Homer never leaves and ends up being inspired - and inspiring others - to get this church built.
But it is the journey - not the destination - of this film that matters. Homer is thwarted time and time again by Mother Maria in his attempts to leave and his protestations that this is the “final job, then I’m leaving” is met with steeled determination by Mother Maria who has an unflappable belief that Homer is the answer to her prayers.
This film hangs on the relationship between Homer and Mother Maria and these 2 fine actors deliver the goods. Poitier is a deserved winner of the Best Actor Oscar (though he would fret for years that his win was a “token” win - which it is not). His Homer Smith is charming and forceful with a “lost” look in his eyes when he first arrives in the desert. This, in turns, changes to fierce determination to get that church built.
The real hero of this film is the under-rated performance of Skala (who did a series of TV Guest star appearances in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s but never really had a movie role - before or since - that would rival this one). It would have been tempting to make Mother Maria a one-note ice queen in her dogged determination - and belief - that Homer was sent by God, but in the hands of Skala there is a warmth in her eyes that serves as a counterbalance to her resolve.
It is the relationship of these 2 characters - and the ramifications of this relationship to the parish community - that is the soul of this film, and this soul runs deep. The relationship between Homer and Mother Maria is not, exactly, a friendship, but more of a strong work bond. 2 persons united in a common goal - for the common good.
Not the fastest moving of all films you will view, but the heart and soul that is at the center of this film - along with 2 very strong central performances - will warm your heart.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written by James Poe from the Novel by William E. Barrett, LILIES OF THE FIELD tells the tale of a drifter who is the answer to a Nun’s prayer. Praying to the God that she believes in, she asks for help in getting a Church built in the desert in Arizona.
Simply Directed by Ralph Nelson (fresh off his success with REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT), Lilies of the Field is a positive life (and faith) affirming film from start to finish that will touch your heart…and your soul.
Poitier stars as handyman Homer Smith who’s car breaks down where a group of Nuns are trying to start a parish (and get a church built). Following the machinations of Mother Maria (Lilia Skala - in an Oscar nominated turn of her own), Homer never leaves and ends up being inspired - and inspiring others - to get this church built.
But it is the journey - not the destination - of this film that matters. Homer is thwarted time and time again by Mother Maria in his attempts to leave and his protestations that this is the “final job, then I’m leaving” is met with steeled determination by Mother Maria who has an unflappable belief that Homer is the answer to her prayers.
This film hangs on the relationship between Homer and Mother Maria and these 2 fine actors deliver the goods. Poitier is a deserved winner of the Best Actor Oscar (though he would fret for years that his win was a “token” win - which it is not). His Homer Smith is charming and forceful with a “lost” look in his eyes when he first arrives in the desert. This, in turns, changes to fierce determination to get that church built.
The real hero of this film is the under-rated performance of Skala (who did a series of TV Guest star appearances in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s but never really had a movie role - before or since - that would rival this one). It would have been tempting to make Mother Maria a one-note ice queen in her dogged determination - and belief - that Homer was sent by God, but in the hands of Skala there is a warmth in her eyes that serves as a counterbalance to her resolve.
It is the relationship of these 2 characters - and the ramifications of this relationship to the parish community - that is the soul of this film, and this soul runs deep. The relationship between Homer and Mother Maria is not, exactly, a friendship, but more of a strong work bond. 2 persons united in a common goal - for the common good.
Not the fastest moving of all films you will view, but the heart and soul that is at the center of this film - along with 2 very strong central performances - will warm your heart.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019
The film Tarantino was born to make
ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD is the film that Quentin Tarantino was born to make and it is his Masterpiece.
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019
Young ensemble cast actually ensembling! (1 more)
Adam Driver on great form
After 42 years - does it leave with a bang or a whimper?
This review will be spoiler-free.
And so we come to the grand conclusion of George Lucas's nine-film vision, and someone can at last put the multi-limbed behemoth in a coffin and nail down the lid. It's certainly been a bumpy ride for this latest trilogy under Disney's stewardship, with rabidly negative fan-boys getting very hot under the collar about 'their baby' being despoiled by the evil empire!
We left the end of the last film with the Rebellion in tatters, reduced to a tiny fleet of ships. (It was truly fortunate that our key players were not on any of the lost ships wasn't it?) Rey (Daisy Ridley) is progressing her Jedi-training under the guidance of a new teacher. But the presence of Kylo-Ren (Adam Driver) is forever there, and their long-distance "psycho-chats" are becoming ever more 'substantial' as the bond between them grows.
But a dark presence from the past has returned, and both are drawn to it in different ways. A showdown between the forces of good and evil is inevitable.
The pace of the film is frenetic and totally exhausting. The first 30 minutes hardly pause for a breath as we zap around from location to location. Where the film really worked better for me was in the quieter and more reflective moments. Kylo Ren is in many of these moments: one, where he visits a very dark place, is well done; and one, where he receives a special visitor, is an interlude that is surprisingly effective. Adam Driver really is in excellent form here; he's never been my favourite actor in the world, but here truly impresses.
One of the problems of the first two films in the trilogy is that it sent all the young leads off in multiple different directions. The result was that there was very little of the interplay of the first films (between Han, Luke and Leia) that made them so memorable. Here that issue is rectified and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega) develop a close onscreen bond with much resultant banter. Ridley's Rey also gets thrown into the mix, with the result that a group hug feels at last normal and right. It's bizarre, but you suddenly realise what was missing here when - FOR THE FIRST TIME - two of the characters get introduced to each other!
A welcome inclusion is that of the late Carrie Fisher as Leia. It's actually extraordinary that they had enough unused footage to be able to weave in a full role for the character into the story. It never feels forced and there were only a few 'hugs' where I found myself thinking "I bet that's not her".
C3PO (Anthony Daniels) also gets much more screen time and has some really nice and comical scenes in here. And a new uni-wheeled robot (voiced by director J.J. Abrams) adds to both the comic potential (and the available Disney merchandise!).
One of the new characters on show is the physically impressive Naomi Ackie as the horse (or something!) riding Jannah. But she's given little to do in the plot.
Elsewhere, there are a whole bunch of famous faces cropping up. Watching the end credit roll is an "OH! That was who that was" revelation in some cases. I won't list them here, since it is delicious to go in blind and have the surprise of seeing them. But some are famous actors from screen and TV, and one is an Abrams' favourite from a past TV glory. The biggest cheer though was reserved for a certain X-wing fighter near the end of the film. A blink-and-you'll-miss-him moment, it was a white-haired appearance to treasure.
What the film does very well (or very badly if you read some reviews) is hark back to the glories of the earlier films, and particularly Episodes IV to VI. Many places are revisited or scenes re-enacted until the place is just SOGGY with nostalgia (to use an old Tom Lehrer line). Although greatly contrived, I enjoyed these scenes immensely.
Making maximum use of the opportunity, John Williams bashes out theme after theme from most of the nine films. The soundtrack really is a "John Williams Greatest Hits" collection. Williams also actually gets a cameo as well - apparently as an eye-patch wearing bar-tender in the Nepalese-like town, though I must admit I missed it. (I've seen comment online that this is his first on-screen appearance: actually not true... he was conducting the orchestra in the "bird-lady's concert hall" in "Home Alone 2").
There are also a huge number of similarities I saw in certain scenes with other cinematic releases outside of the Star Wars universe:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - in two particular scenes;
"Dunkirk" - but done properly!
"Dora and the Lost City of Gold" - it doesn't make any physics sense here either!
"Power Rangers" - just because of one of the characters - you'll know the one
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" - but to say more would be a spoiler!
And there are probably others I've forgotten!
One of my key issues with "The Last Jedi" was the way in which it invented mad-cap tasks, objects and people that had to be completed/found for the plot to be moved forwards. A massive and pointless diversion to a casino planet, for example, was made just to get into a secure area of an imperial vessel: something in this film they 'just do'!
This movie also suffers to a degree from the disease of 'McGuffinitis'. Where's the beacon? There's a dagger that must be found; Where's the interpreter?; etc. It's all very formulaic. But at least in this case, there is a certain logical flow that follows within the plot.
The LP soundtrack of "Star Wars" got me into a lifelong love of film music. One of the last tracks on the soundtrack of the first film was called "The Last Battle". Well, THAT wasn't true! There have been so many space battles since then that we've all lost count. But we all knew this would build to a doozy of a finale, and the film doesn't disappoint. There is utter mayhem in the skies: WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE HENCHMEN'S FAMILIES?
It all drives to a satisfying ending for me and feels like a good closure to the saga. Is it perfect? No, not at all. It really sets itself with too much to do, and then tries to do it all within the available running time. The film will - and has by looking at the volume of IMDB 1* ratings - upset a lot of the fan-boys. But, you know what? Stuff 'em! The film should be judged on how it makes YOU feel as a standalone piece of entertainment, rather than as a part of some sort of pseudo-religious cult. And I personally think Abrams did a pretty decent job here of trying to please most of the people most of the time.
(For the full graphical review, please visit One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019/ )
And so we come to the grand conclusion of George Lucas's nine-film vision, and someone can at last put the multi-limbed behemoth in a coffin and nail down the lid. It's certainly been a bumpy ride for this latest trilogy under Disney's stewardship, with rabidly negative fan-boys getting very hot under the collar about 'their baby' being despoiled by the evil empire!
We left the end of the last film with the Rebellion in tatters, reduced to a tiny fleet of ships. (It was truly fortunate that our key players were not on any of the lost ships wasn't it?) Rey (Daisy Ridley) is progressing her Jedi-training under the guidance of a new teacher. But the presence of Kylo-Ren (Adam Driver) is forever there, and their long-distance "psycho-chats" are becoming ever more 'substantial' as the bond between them grows.
But a dark presence from the past has returned, and both are drawn to it in different ways. A showdown between the forces of good and evil is inevitable.
The pace of the film is frenetic and totally exhausting. The first 30 minutes hardly pause for a breath as we zap around from location to location. Where the film really worked better for me was in the quieter and more reflective moments. Kylo Ren is in many of these moments: one, where he visits a very dark place, is well done; and one, where he receives a special visitor, is an interlude that is surprisingly effective. Adam Driver really is in excellent form here; he's never been my favourite actor in the world, but here truly impresses.
One of the problems of the first two films in the trilogy is that it sent all the young leads off in multiple different directions. The result was that there was very little of the interplay of the first films (between Han, Luke and Leia) that made them so memorable. Here that issue is rectified and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega) develop a close onscreen bond with much resultant banter. Ridley's Rey also gets thrown into the mix, with the result that a group hug feels at last normal and right. It's bizarre, but you suddenly realise what was missing here when - FOR THE FIRST TIME - two of the characters get introduced to each other!
A welcome inclusion is that of the late Carrie Fisher as Leia. It's actually extraordinary that they had enough unused footage to be able to weave in a full role for the character into the story. It never feels forced and there were only a few 'hugs' where I found myself thinking "I bet that's not her".
C3PO (Anthony Daniels) also gets much more screen time and has some really nice and comical scenes in here. And a new uni-wheeled robot (voiced by director J.J. Abrams) adds to both the comic potential (and the available Disney merchandise!).
One of the new characters on show is the physically impressive Naomi Ackie as the horse (or something!) riding Jannah. But she's given little to do in the plot.
Elsewhere, there are a whole bunch of famous faces cropping up. Watching the end credit roll is an "OH! That was who that was" revelation in some cases. I won't list them here, since it is delicious to go in blind and have the surprise of seeing them. But some are famous actors from screen and TV, and one is an Abrams' favourite from a past TV glory. The biggest cheer though was reserved for a certain X-wing fighter near the end of the film. A blink-and-you'll-miss-him moment, it was a white-haired appearance to treasure.
What the film does very well (or very badly if you read some reviews) is hark back to the glories of the earlier films, and particularly Episodes IV to VI. Many places are revisited or scenes re-enacted until the place is just SOGGY with nostalgia (to use an old Tom Lehrer line). Although greatly contrived, I enjoyed these scenes immensely.
Making maximum use of the opportunity, John Williams bashes out theme after theme from most of the nine films. The soundtrack really is a "John Williams Greatest Hits" collection. Williams also actually gets a cameo as well - apparently as an eye-patch wearing bar-tender in the Nepalese-like town, though I must admit I missed it. (I've seen comment online that this is his first on-screen appearance: actually not true... he was conducting the orchestra in the "bird-lady's concert hall" in "Home Alone 2").
There are also a huge number of similarities I saw in certain scenes with other cinematic releases outside of the Star Wars universe:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - in two particular scenes;
"Dunkirk" - but done properly!
"Dora and the Lost City of Gold" - it doesn't make any physics sense here either!
"Power Rangers" - just because of one of the characters - you'll know the one
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" - but to say more would be a spoiler!
And there are probably others I've forgotten!
One of my key issues with "The Last Jedi" was the way in which it invented mad-cap tasks, objects and people that had to be completed/found for the plot to be moved forwards. A massive and pointless diversion to a casino planet, for example, was made just to get into a secure area of an imperial vessel: something in this film they 'just do'!
This movie also suffers to a degree from the disease of 'McGuffinitis'. Where's the beacon? There's a dagger that must be found; Where's the interpreter?; etc. It's all very formulaic. But at least in this case, there is a certain logical flow that follows within the plot.
The LP soundtrack of "Star Wars" got me into a lifelong love of film music. One of the last tracks on the soundtrack of the first film was called "The Last Battle". Well, THAT wasn't true! There have been so many space battles since then that we've all lost count. But we all knew this would build to a doozy of a finale, and the film doesn't disappoint. There is utter mayhem in the skies: WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE HENCHMEN'S FAMILIES?
It all drives to a satisfying ending for me and feels like a good closure to the saga. Is it perfect? No, not at all. It really sets itself with too much to do, and then tries to do it all within the available running time. The film will - and has by looking at the volume of IMDB 1* ratings - upset a lot of the fan-boys. But, you know what? Stuff 'em! The film should be judged on how it makes YOU feel as a standalone piece of entertainment, rather than as a part of some sort of pseudo-religious cult. And I personally think Abrams did a pretty decent job here of trying to please most of the people most of the time.
(For the full graphical review, please visit One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019/ )
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror - Season 3 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
Nosedive - 8
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
We had to wait almost another 2 years for the Netflix investment to show a product, and in time for Halloween 2016 we got the super-glossy re-boot of Nosedive, with a big name up front and lots of anticipation. The tone was instantly more playful; less British, more inclusive to a world audience. It tackled with a wry humour the universal phenomenon of popularity and everything being rated, most notably, people themselves. In a future world of sunshine and pastel shades it has become the norm to rate every interaction, from buying coffee to buying a house, in the hope of becoming one of the beautiful people rated above a 4.5. It cleverly questions the motivations for that desire, and the pitfalls of false behaviour and the manipulation from an elite standpoint. It isn’t necessary to imagine this future, as we are virtually there already, and all this episode does is heighten the idea to hyperbolic proportions. Rated down by many viewers because it is “annoying”, but that is entirely the point: the whole thing makes you want to scream!
Playtest - 6.5
Also available for Halloween (as was the whole season, in standard Netflix style) came a chance to explore what really scares us! And… they blew it. Sure, the idea that gaming and VR becomes so photo realistic it seems entirely real isn’t far away. But, making it personal to a very annoying character dissolves all tension quite early on. Some mild jump scares aside, this has to go down as a missed opportunity. Notable only for the re-occurance of the White Bear symbol.
Shut Up and Dance - 7
This is the one most likely to make you think, hmm, that is too far! An uncomfortable episode, not only because of the subject matter and ultimate revelation, but because of the intense nastiness that pervades it. No doubt that tension is intentional, and therefore effective to a degree, but for me it crosses the line of entertainment and becomes simply nasty. Being unafraid to tackle controversial subjects is to be applauded, but the execution has to be note perfect, or the risk is the backlash this episode received. A cautionary tale about surveillance, data theft, blackmail and our personal online responsibility. Not a bad piece, just a slight misjudgment on tone and delivery.
San Junipero - 9.5
Just when critics were sharpening their pens that Netflix had ruined the potential of Black Mirror in its first phase, comes an almost perfect piece of TV that is literally heavenly! Everything about San Junipero is a work of art! Another “blind” episode that takes a while to unravel; the pacing and realisation of which is so beautifully judged that, from a writing point of view, this has to be seen as the pinnacle of the show to date. Mackenzie Davis is extraordinary as the vulnerable, shy and naive Yorkie, looking for a connection in an 80s nightclub, filled with nostalgia and cultural memes galore. The music alone is not only sing aloud perfect, but chosen for storytelling reasons so clever it raises goosebumps! The relationship between Yorkie and Kelly, an equally great Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is filled with chemistry and nuance, drawing us in to a place so deep that when the penny drops on what is really going on it draws a gasp and then possibly tears – I know it did for me! The mechanics of the technology that would make this story possible does raise a lot of questions, but in the end it is better to accept it as an allegory for love, life and our ideas of “eternity”. Don’t look too deeply at the how, but marvel at the why, and this could be the best hour of TV you will ever see! So rewatchable, rich and rewarding; the only reason not to make this a feature length big budget film is that how could it possibly be improved?
Men Against Fire - 7
Revisiting yet again the technology of a brain implant that affects our vision of the world, literally and figuratively, this episode explores indoctrination and brainwashing, with the underlying themes of racism and basic human compassion. It is a fine analogy of how the media and governments would have us think of immigrants and the “dangers” of anything “not us”. A tad obvious, and doesn’t really go anywhere new once the twist is revealed. Visually quite stunning, but not as strong as other episodes that cover similar ground.
Hated in the Nation - 8.5
With a running time of 89 minutes, this is essentially what happens when Black Mirror pushes an idea to feature length. Allowing more time for character development does make a difference, and the tension build in this fine concept for a thriller also benefits from a few extra minutes. The ever reliable Kelly MacDonald is the cornerstone of a strong cast, on the hunt for the mind behind a series of killings by killer bee drones, targeted at a democratically elected “most hated” person every day, based on a public vote. An exploration of media vilification and how easy it can be to manipulate our idea of someone’s identity and judge their actions and even personalities based on one wrong thing they may have said or done. The episode is a who-dunnit? A why-doit? And, framed, with the backdrop of the inquest surrounding events, both a good cop movie and a courtroom drama. Charlie Brooker has hinted that some of these characters may return at some point. I’m all for it.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
May 27, 2019
"They said the age of heroes would never come again."
As a huge fan of Zack Snyder's first two efforts inside the DCEU and Patty Jenkins wonderful Wonder Woman, my expectations for Justice League were pretty much through the roof. After the mediocre buzz that it got and all the stuff that happened behind the scenes, I was a little skeptical but still very excited, but after getting out of the theater, one word really just describes how I felt; disappointed.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Jan 16, 2019
A lush and beautiful memory
Alfonso Cuaron - the magnificent Director from Mexico who directed such big Hollywood hits as HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (the best HP flick, IMHO) and GRAVITY (one of the best films of 2013, IMHO) has made a little "personal" film that was financed and released by Netflix. Netflix, in their wisdom, realized they might have an Oscar contender on it's hands, so has released ROMA in limited release to Theaters (mostly Art Houses) and...in some instances...you can catch a 70mm print of this film. Or...you can watch it on your TV via your Netflix subscription.
I would highly recommend checking this film out at your local movie theater house and, if you are lucky enough to have a theater that is showing the 70mm print, I would tell you to run...don't walk...to check this out.
For ROMA is a beautifully filmed Black and White film, in Spanish (with English subtitles) that tells a very personal story of a family in Mexico City in the early 1970's - as seen through the eyes of their house maid. This story is based (according to what I have read) on Cuaron's own childhood and he has lovingly, beautifully recreated this world and populated it with some interesting characters/experiences.
It is also languidly paced (read: slow) and - if I am honest about it - not much happens. So if you add languid pace with black and white photography with Spanish language (and English subtitles) with not much in the way of plot or action, your attention span will be stretched and, I'm afraid, if you're home, you will be tempted to be distracted by your phone, the dog, the dishes, a magazine, etc...
And that would be a shame, for I fell in love with this film, the beauty of the cinematography and the slow pace of it all and I think you will too if you give it a chance.
Cuaron, most certainly, will be nominated for an Oscar for his writing and directing of this piece - and I am sure that this film will be nominated for Best Picture (and deservedly so), but it is in two other places that I was entranced by ROMA. I have mentioned the first - the Cinematography. This film is a shoo-in for a Best Cinematography Oscar, the black and white is lush and rich throughout the film and adds to the memory-style idealized world that Cuaron has put on screen. So, the Best Cinematography Oscar should go to...Alfonso Cuaron.
The other area that I am surprised to say worked very well for me is the performances of the cast, all Mexican actors, unknown to U.S. audiences. Standing out most notably are Marina de Tavira as the matriarch of the family, Senora Sofia and, most surprisingly, Yalitza Aparicio as the focal point of this film, Cleo. Her part is mostly mute (or at least mute for me, for I don't speak Spanish) so the emotions I felt coming from her were brought forth through her facial features, looks and reactions, much more than what she says. I would be fine with either of these two getting an Oscar nomination.
Despite a slow start - and a slow pace throughout this film - and not much going on, I was entranced and enthralled by the world that Cuaron put on screen. A world that exists, mostly, in Cuaron's memory and that, now, exists for us to see in this wonderful film.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I would highly recommend checking this film out at your local movie theater house and, if you are lucky enough to have a theater that is showing the 70mm print, I would tell you to run...don't walk...to check this out.
For ROMA is a beautifully filmed Black and White film, in Spanish (with English subtitles) that tells a very personal story of a family in Mexico City in the early 1970's - as seen through the eyes of their house maid. This story is based (according to what I have read) on Cuaron's own childhood and he has lovingly, beautifully recreated this world and populated it with some interesting characters/experiences.
It is also languidly paced (read: slow) and - if I am honest about it - not much happens. So if you add languid pace with black and white photography with Spanish language (and English subtitles) with not much in the way of plot or action, your attention span will be stretched and, I'm afraid, if you're home, you will be tempted to be distracted by your phone, the dog, the dishes, a magazine, etc...
And that would be a shame, for I fell in love with this film, the beauty of the cinematography and the slow pace of it all and I think you will too if you give it a chance.
Cuaron, most certainly, will be nominated for an Oscar for his writing and directing of this piece - and I am sure that this film will be nominated for Best Picture (and deservedly so), but it is in two other places that I was entranced by ROMA. I have mentioned the first - the Cinematography. This film is a shoo-in for a Best Cinematography Oscar, the black and white is lush and rich throughout the film and adds to the memory-style idealized world that Cuaron has put on screen. So, the Best Cinematography Oscar should go to...Alfonso Cuaron.
The other area that I am surprised to say worked very well for me is the performances of the cast, all Mexican actors, unknown to U.S. audiences. Standing out most notably are Marina de Tavira as the matriarch of the family, Senora Sofia and, most surprisingly, Yalitza Aparicio as the focal point of this film, Cleo. Her part is mostly mute (or at least mute for me, for I don't speak Spanish) so the emotions I felt coming from her were brought forth through her facial features, looks and reactions, much more than what she says. I would be fine with either of these two getting an Oscar nomination.
Despite a slow start - and a slow pace throughout this film - and not much going on, I was entranced and enthralled by the world that Cuaron put on screen. A world that exists, mostly, in Cuaron's memory and that, now, exists for us to see in this wonderful film.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)