Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated World War Z (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Brad Pitt has become one of Hollywood’s best loved actors over the years and it isn’t difficult to see why. His chiselled good looks, slick blonde hair and quiet confidence have all ensured he is never short of work. Here, he teams up with director Marc Forster who helmed the disappointing James Bond sequel, Quantum of Solace, in the latest zombie film to hit the screens; World War Z, but is it any good?
Pitt plays Gerry Lane, a former UN investigator who has chosen the quiet life and retired early to spend more time with his wife and children. Whilst taking his wife Karin and two daughters Rachel and Constance out in the car, they become stuck in heavy traffic which marks the start of the mayhem. From then on this 116 minute thrill ride puts the viewer on the edge of their seat more times than an Alton Towers rollercoaster.
After fleeing the hordes of ridiculously fast and ridiculously terrifying undead, Lane and his family board a US aircraft carrier where they are told they will be safe; however, as always, there is a price to pay. Gerry must start work once again to try and find the epicentre of the zombie virus – otherwise, the entire world will be lost. From here, Gerry’s mission is to travel across the globe trying to find what it is that has infected nearly 100% of the planet’s population.
What plays out could be described as a formulaic horror film, but it is so much more than that. Whilst it’s true that there isn’t enough character development, in fact there is only 5 minutes of it right at the beginning, director Marc Forster has cleverly allowed the audience to make up their own minds about the family’s back story and whether we care if they survive or not.
World War Z is not a film for the faint hearted, and whilst blood and guts are quite sparse for a movie with a 15 certificate, there are some truly terrifying moments, many of which will have your heart pumping through your chest.
There are scenes here that really get the adrenaline flowing, one of which involving a stowaway zombie onboard a commercial jet will leave you biting your lip, grabbing your seat and looking through your fingers in shock, horror and intense excitement. It’s safe to say I came away with very bitten fingernails.
Special effects are on par with some of the better blockbusters of the last couple of years. They aren’t as in your face as those in Transformers, nor as lacklustre as the CGI in I am Legend, they are right in the middle and because the effect is used incredibly subtly, you don’t notice when extras stop playing the zombies and the animators take over.
However, it is in the acting that this film really succeeds. Pitt is fantastic as Gerry Lane, his quiet sense of confidence never turns into arrogance as he fights for survival and this will hold the character in high esteem with audiences. He doesn’t pretend to be an action hero, heck, he even makes the kind of mistakes that any human would do if they were under pressure, and thankfully he does all of this beautifully; his characterisation is absolute perfection. The rest of his family are also excellent, Abigail Hargrove and Sterling Jerins who play Rachel and Constance respectively are very good indeed; you truly believe they are missing their father and cannot wait to see him return. The rest of the cast do very well with the limited roles they have, but let’s not forget that this is a Brad Pitt one-man show and he is more than up to the job.
Unfortunately, the cinematography really lets the film down. There is far too much handy-cam in the first 30 minutes, something which I hate. Directors often use it to sustain a sense of alarm and terror, but Marc Forster has used it to such an extent here that it made me feel physically sick. Moreover, whilst the story is solid, it is nothing more than that, and often the plot takes a back seat to the impressive action pieces meaning that the film seems to go through the motions of 10 minutes plot, 10 action, and so on.
Overall, World War Z is a very impressive film. The sheer scale of the virus means that Marc Forster has utilised some beautiful scenery from across the globe. Whilst it may be slightly too long for a zombie film at just under 2 hours, and have a distinct lack of character development; the impressive story, brilliant acting and very good special effects help lift it above the norm. This is a ride better than any rollercoaster, and is 100% worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/22/world-war-z-review-2013/
Pitt plays Gerry Lane, a former UN investigator who has chosen the quiet life and retired early to spend more time with his wife and children. Whilst taking his wife Karin and two daughters Rachel and Constance out in the car, they become stuck in heavy traffic which marks the start of the mayhem. From then on this 116 minute thrill ride puts the viewer on the edge of their seat more times than an Alton Towers rollercoaster.
After fleeing the hordes of ridiculously fast and ridiculously terrifying undead, Lane and his family board a US aircraft carrier where they are told they will be safe; however, as always, there is a price to pay. Gerry must start work once again to try and find the epicentre of the zombie virus – otherwise, the entire world will be lost. From here, Gerry’s mission is to travel across the globe trying to find what it is that has infected nearly 100% of the planet’s population.
What plays out could be described as a formulaic horror film, but it is so much more than that. Whilst it’s true that there isn’t enough character development, in fact there is only 5 minutes of it right at the beginning, director Marc Forster has cleverly allowed the audience to make up their own minds about the family’s back story and whether we care if they survive or not.
World War Z is not a film for the faint hearted, and whilst blood and guts are quite sparse for a movie with a 15 certificate, there are some truly terrifying moments, many of which will have your heart pumping through your chest.
There are scenes here that really get the adrenaline flowing, one of which involving a stowaway zombie onboard a commercial jet will leave you biting your lip, grabbing your seat and looking through your fingers in shock, horror and intense excitement. It’s safe to say I came away with very bitten fingernails.
Special effects are on par with some of the better blockbusters of the last couple of years. They aren’t as in your face as those in Transformers, nor as lacklustre as the CGI in I am Legend, they are right in the middle and because the effect is used incredibly subtly, you don’t notice when extras stop playing the zombies and the animators take over.
However, it is in the acting that this film really succeeds. Pitt is fantastic as Gerry Lane, his quiet sense of confidence never turns into arrogance as he fights for survival and this will hold the character in high esteem with audiences. He doesn’t pretend to be an action hero, heck, he even makes the kind of mistakes that any human would do if they were under pressure, and thankfully he does all of this beautifully; his characterisation is absolute perfection. The rest of his family are also excellent, Abigail Hargrove and Sterling Jerins who play Rachel and Constance respectively are very good indeed; you truly believe they are missing their father and cannot wait to see him return. The rest of the cast do very well with the limited roles they have, but let’s not forget that this is a Brad Pitt one-man show and he is more than up to the job.
Unfortunately, the cinematography really lets the film down. There is far too much handy-cam in the first 30 minutes, something which I hate. Directors often use it to sustain a sense of alarm and terror, but Marc Forster has used it to such an extent here that it made me feel physically sick. Moreover, whilst the story is solid, it is nothing more than that, and often the plot takes a back seat to the impressive action pieces meaning that the film seems to go through the motions of 10 minutes plot, 10 action, and so on.
Overall, World War Z is a very impressive film. The sheer scale of the virus means that Marc Forster has utilised some beautiful scenery from across the globe. Whilst it may be slightly too long for a zombie film at just under 2 hours, and have a distinct lack of character development; the impressive story, brilliant acting and very good special effects help lift it above the norm. This is a ride better than any rollercoaster, and is 100% worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/06/22/world-war-z-review-2013/
The Chairport (1 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Aug 4, 2018
Real action (3 more)
Real stunts
Fantastically scored
Beautiful locations and cinematography
Pay the admission, accept this mission!
(Review from www.thechairport.com)When the Mission Impossible film franchise started it had a slightly rocky start. After a great first film, the second film fell short of the mark. Watching those first two films now you can see how different they are to the Mission we know now. Ever since the second Mission film, ever since JJ Abrams and the Bad Robot team took over, the Mission franchise has been ageing like a fine wine. Actually, it’s been ageing like Tom Cruise. Fallout, the sixth film in the Mission franchise is the best yet and easily one of the best action films of all time and it’s all thanks to its real action.
Mission Impossible: Fallout follows Ethan Hunt as he and his crew lose some plutonium they are trying to recover. The bad guys trying to use the plutonium are The Apostles, a spin-off group from Rogue Nation’s Syndicate. This time the IMF team are joined by a ruthless CIA agent, Walker played by Henry Cavill, who is there to ensure that the team retrieve the plutonium. The bad guys this time around, The Apostles, follow Solomon Lane’s thinking that to get peace the world must first experience a great suffering. With that line ringing throughout the IMF’s ears, the team is off on a race against time to stop The Apostles.
Fallout is filled with action and as far as action movies come, this film really takes the cake. Tom Cruise is just the man that everyone wants to be, as in he really seems like he can do anything. In the current state of cinema any other filmmaking team would’ve made this film with CGI effects all over yet Cruise and Fallout’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, have decided to do everything for real and it’s that element alone that makes the film.
There are moments in Fallout where you just sit there astonished by what you’re seeing happen in front of you. You feel shivers and the need to applause at the opening ten minutes of the film, your eye’s dash across the screen as you’re watching Cruise’s Ethan Hunt race through oncoming traffic in Paris and you’ll find yourself simply flabbergasted as you watch Cruise do anything at all in the helicopter sequence that you’ve definitely already heard about.
Mission Impossible: Fallout isn’t just simply an insane action blockbuster, it is more than that. Every actor on the screen knows that what they’re in is going to be something revolutionary for cinema and every actor really pulls their weight. Simon Pegg’s comedy is on point, Alec Baldwin’s acting as someone in charge is as good as ever, Henry Cavill being absolutely brutal is scary and cool at the same time. Fallout also has a good amount of female characters in it with Rebecca Ferguson and Michelle Monaghan bringing a lot of well-needed emotion and Vanessa Kirby’s Black Widow bringing a funny yet creepy vibe to the whole occasion.
The story is fairly simple as McQuarrie doesn’t want to isolate the audience, you can definitely see it if you haven’t seen other Mission Films. It’s McQuarrie and his team’s filmmaking that really make the film what it is. The cameraman who does the HALO jump with Tom Cruise deserves many awards and I would be surprised if the film, and its team, didn’t win any awards for filmmaking. If you’ve got free time too then look up how the film was made because it is quite interesting. I mean it’s rare that an action blockbuster would even be nominated but as of right now Fallout is my favourite film of the year, both for how good it is and then researching how it was made. People just don’t put in as much effort as the Mission team have done in films anymore.
Mission Impossible: Fallout is a must-see film. It’s a long film but never really feels like it. It’s a constant chase that will keep you on the edge of your seat and it has twists and turns that you won’t see coming. I was recently reading about how Christopher Nolan wanted The Dark Knight to bring back film instead of everyone filming digitally. Fallout sings a similar message and but its message is for real-life stunts. Mquarrie has evolved in a similar manner to how Nolan evolved between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Fallout gave me similar vibes of excitement and intensity and Fallout will leave its mark on you, I’m not sure how I’ll feel watching CGI action from now on. All I know is that making everything real instead of fake isn’t impossible but to repeat the magic that Fallout has, well that’s only something the Mission team can do. Mission accomplished Cruise, mission accomplished.
Score: 5/5
Mission Impossible: Fallout follows Ethan Hunt as he and his crew lose some plutonium they are trying to recover. The bad guys trying to use the plutonium are The Apostles, a spin-off group from Rogue Nation’s Syndicate. This time the IMF team are joined by a ruthless CIA agent, Walker played by Henry Cavill, who is there to ensure that the team retrieve the plutonium. The bad guys this time around, The Apostles, follow Solomon Lane’s thinking that to get peace the world must first experience a great suffering. With that line ringing throughout the IMF’s ears, the team is off on a race against time to stop The Apostles.
Fallout is filled with action and as far as action movies come, this film really takes the cake. Tom Cruise is just the man that everyone wants to be, as in he really seems like he can do anything. In the current state of cinema any other filmmaking team would’ve made this film with CGI effects all over yet Cruise and Fallout’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, have decided to do everything for real and it’s that element alone that makes the film.
There are moments in Fallout where you just sit there astonished by what you’re seeing happen in front of you. You feel shivers and the need to applause at the opening ten minutes of the film, your eye’s dash across the screen as you’re watching Cruise’s Ethan Hunt race through oncoming traffic in Paris and you’ll find yourself simply flabbergasted as you watch Cruise do anything at all in the helicopter sequence that you’ve definitely already heard about.
Mission Impossible: Fallout isn’t just simply an insane action blockbuster, it is more than that. Every actor on the screen knows that what they’re in is going to be something revolutionary for cinema and every actor really pulls their weight. Simon Pegg’s comedy is on point, Alec Baldwin’s acting as someone in charge is as good as ever, Henry Cavill being absolutely brutal is scary and cool at the same time. Fallout also has a good amount of female characters in it with Rebecca Ferguson and Michelle Monaghan bringing a lot of well-needed emotion and Vanessa Kirby’s Black Widow bringing a funny yet creepy vibe to the whole occasion.
The story is fairly simple as McQuarrie doesn’t want to isolate the audience, you can definitely see it if you haven’t seen other Mission Films. It’s McQuarrie and his team’s filmmaking that really make the film what it is. The cameraman who does the HALO jump with Tom Cruise deserves many awards and I would be surprised if the film, and its team, didn’t win any awards for filmmaking. If you’ve got free time too then look up how the film was made because it is quite interesting. I mean it’s rare that an action blockbuster would even be nominated but as of right now Fallout is my favourite film of the year, both for how good it is and then researching how it was made. People just don’t put in as much effort as the Mission team have done in films anymore.
Mission Impossible: Fallout is a must-see film. It’s a long film but never really feels like it. It’s a constant chase that will keep you on the edge of your seat and it has twists and turns that you won’t see coming. I was recently reading about how Christopher Nolan wanted The Dark Knight to bring back film instead of everyone filming digitally. Fallout sings a similar message and but its message is for real-life stunts. Mquarrie has evolved in a similar manner to how Nolan evolved between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Fallout gave me similar vibes of excitement and intensity and Fallout will leave its mark on you, I’m not sure how I’ll feel watching CGI action from now on. All I know is that making everything real instead of fake isn’t impossible but to repeat the magic that Fallout has, well that’s only something the Mission team can do. Mission accomplished Cruise, mission accomplished.
Score: 5/5
Lee (2222 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
About twenty or so years ago, before the age of social media and all the FOMO and spoilers that comes from having such easy access to the entire movie loving world, a delayed UK release for a movie that had already been out in the US for some months wasn't such a big deal. I can remember buying an imported region 1 DVD of The Blair Witch Project and watching it on Halloween night in the UK, in the comfort of my living room and on the day it was released in the cinema. I was pretty disappointed with what I saw, but that's not my point here. Recently, we seem to be regressing to that period in time once more - not with big releases such as Marvel movies, which we are usually lucky enough to sometimes get a day or so before the US, but with films that could be described as being a little less mainstream. The Lighthouse, Jojo Rabbit, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and the subject of this review, Parasite, have all been subject to such treatment and, along with the delayed release of Disney+, the UK currently seems to be getting a serious shafting. Parasite though is a movie for which I've heard nothing but praise for what seems like forever now. It has received six Oscar nominations and is now receiving a US disc release before it's even released in UK cinemas! Anyway, ranting aside, I did manage to avoid any spoilers for Parasite and was able to go in fairly unclear as to what to expect, and I would urge everyone else to do the same. Consequently, I will try to review it by giving away as little as possible.
Parasite tells the story of the Kim family, living in poverty in a cluttered South Korean basement. When we join them they are all desperately trying to find a spot in their home where they can pick up on a nearby public WiFi hot spot in order to connect their phones to Whatsapp (turns out, it's in the corner of the toilet!). Times are clearly tough and when the mother manages to get a small job putting together pizza boxes at home, the whole family chips in to help. They even have the pleasure of being able to view drunk men staggering down their street and urinating right outside the basement window while they try to eat at their dining room table.
A friend of the son comes to visit him one evening and tells him that he has to go away for a while. He currently has a job teaching English to the daughter of the wealthy Park family and wonders if Ki-woo would like to temporarily take over for him. Despite Ki-woo having no experience in tutoring, Ki-woo is assured by his friend that it will be easy money and, providing he can win over the confidence of the "simple" mother of the house, he'll have no problem. Sure enough, the confident Ki-woo, backed up by a certificate created for him in Photoshop by his sister, manages to land himself a regular tutoring job. Then, with the use of charm, lies and deception, Ki-woo soon manages to secure cushy jobs within the Park household for the rest of his family - art tutor, housekeeper and chauffeur - all being introduced as either old acquaintances or referrals from colleagues rather than family members. And so, the family find themselves having to lead double lives, juggling their own poverty stricken home-life together, along with the separate lives they lead while working for the Park family as work colleagues.
And that is really the basis of the movie. It's an elaborate scheme which, despite being deceptive and dishonest, is a lot of fun to see play out, and at times you really can get behind the Kim family and root for them. Things go comically wrong, in the kind of way that reminded me of a sitcom where a situation involves our stars getting themselves deeper and deeper into something, no matter how hard they try to go along with it and come up with a solution. And then things start to go horribly, even horrifically wrong, courtesy of a number of little twists and shocks.
Don't let the fact that Parasite is a subtitled movie put you off and believe all the hype you come across, as this is a must see movie and I was gripped, on the edge of my seat and thoroughly entertained for the most part. There is a very clear message played out concerning the rich/poor divide - obvious at times, when you see the contrasting effect that a serious storm has on each family - and much subtler at other times. There are some elements though, surrounding the ending of the movie, which I didn't quite buy into and that stopped this from being a full 10 out of 10 from me. I felt there was a clear point where this could and should have ended earlier, but still an incredible movie all the same.
Parasite tells the story of the Kim family, living in poverty in a cluttered South Korean basement. When we join them they are all desperately trying to find a spot in their home where they can pick up on a nearby public WiFi hot spot in order to connect their phones to Whatsapp (turns out, it's in the corner of the toilet!). Times are clearly tough and when the mother manages to get a small job putting together pizza boxes at home, the whole family chips in to help. They even have the pleasure of being able to view drunk men staggering down their street and urinating right outside the basement window while they try to eat at their dining room table.
A friend of the son comes to visit him one evening and tells him that he has to go away for a while. He currently has a job teaching English to the daughter of the wealthy Park family and wonders if Ki-woo would like to temporarily take over for him. Despite Ki-woo having no experience in tutoring, Ki-woo is assured by his friend that it will be easy money and, providing he can win over the confidence of the "simple" mother of the house, he'll have no problem. Sure enough, the confident Ki-woo, backed up by a certificate created for him in Photoshop by his sister, manages to land himself a regular tutoring job. Then, with the use of charm, lies and deception, Ki-woo soon manages to secure cushy jobs within the Park household for the rest of his family - art tutor, housekeeper and chauffeur - all being introduced as either old acquaintances or referrals from colleagues rather than family members. And so, the family find themselves having to lead double lives, juggling their own poverty stricken home-life together, along with the separate lives they lead while working for the Park family as work colleagues.
And that is really the basis of the movie. It's an elaborate scheme which, despite being deceptive and dishonest, is a lot of fun to see play out, and at times you really can get behind the Kim family and root for them. Things go comically wrong, in the kind of way that reminded me of a sitcom where a situation involves our stars getting themselves deeper and deeper into something, no matter how hard they try to go along with it and come up with a solution. And then things start to go horribly, even horrifically wrong, courtesy of a number of little twists and shocks.
Don't let the fact that Parasite is a subtitled movie put you off and believe all the hype you come across, as this is a must see movie and I was gripped, on the edge of my seat and thoroughly entertained for the most part. There is a very clear message played out concerning the rich/poor divide - obvious at times, when you see the contrasting effect that a serious storm has on each family - and much subtler at other times. There are some elements though, surrounding the ending of the movie, which I didn't quite buy into and that stopped this from being a full 10 out of 10 from me. I felt there was a clear point where this could and should have ended earlier, but still an incredible movie all the same.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
He captured a feeling. Sky with no ceiling.
A memorable event
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
Darren (1599 KP) rated 96 Minutes (2012) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 96 Minutes starts by introducing us to all the characters involved, we have Lena (Serratos) a young woman questioning her relationship choice, Raymond (Martin) working hard at school and a job for Duane (Oyelowo), Kevin (Trautmann) an angry young man who doesn’t enjoy his life where his mother has caused problems, Dre (Ross) a young man that is finally achieving his grades but won’t leave his past behind him and Carley (Snow) a student that is studying law. All of this is leads to a carjacking gone wrong.
The carjacking includes an injured Lena being cared for by Carley after Kevin gets into the mind-set of trying to impress the local gang that Dre gets dragged into supporting his friend.
96 Minutes is a drama thriller that shows the effects of one wrong moment in life, we see how these four people are trying to start something in their lives but when they clash each person’s life will be changed. The film shows how the four characters are average everyday people that shows us how easily anyone could fall into the events. The story does bounce between showing us the normal lives of our characters and the carjacking which shows the character’s mind-sets are through each situation. This is a very powerful drama that is very good to watch.
Actor Review
Brittany Snow: Carley is the law student that is about to graduate but without her father seeing the important part of her life. She finds herself on the wrong end of a carjacking where she must tend to the wounds Lena has received. Brittany showed she can pull off a serious role to go against her more commercial roles.carley
Christian Serratos: Lena is a fellow student that is having an awful day when she discovers her boyfriend is seeing someone else, she then wrecks her car and just wanting to go home she finds herself injured during a carjacking. Christian is great in this role even with half of the film she finds herself injured.
J Michael Trautmann: Kevin is an angry young man who lives with his constantly abused mother while trying to impress the local gang. He is good friends with Dre who tries to calm him down but this only leads to him jacking Carley’s car putting Dre’s future at risk too. J is also great in this role showing how easily young men can be pushed into committing crimes.
Evan Ross: Dre is a young man from the wrong neighbourhood who has achieved something by graduating and wants to show Kevin the future he could one day have. He ends up being the driver in the carjacking but wants to do the right thing. Evan gives us a great performance where he shines through.dre
Support Cast: 96 Minutes has a supporting cast that really works well with our main four characters.
Director Review: Aimee Lagos – Aimee gives us a powerful drama that keeps us on edge wondering what is happens next.
Thriller: 96 Minutes keeps us wondering what will happen to our characters next as the story unfolds.
Settings: 96 Minutes shows the two worlds clashing with two boys coming from the wrong side of town trying to make their own future while the girls show where the next stage will be.
Suggestion: 96 Minutes is one I think everyone should watch at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: Jumping between the two sometimes comes off confusing.
Believability: Inspired by true events.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: Out of options. Out of control. Out of time.
Overall: Brilliant drama that really sucks you in to see one life changing events.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/31/96-minutes-2011/
The carjacking includes an injured Lena being cared for by Carley after Kevin gets into the mind-set of trying to impress the local gang that Dre gets dragged into supporting his friend.
96 Minutes is a drama thriller that shows the effects of one wrong moment in life, we see how these four people are trying to start something in their lives but when they clash each person’s life will be changed. The film shows how the four characters are average everyday people that shows us how easily anyone could fall into the events. The story does bounce between showing us the normal lives of our characters and the carjacking which shows the character’s mind-sets are through each situation. This is a very powerful drama that is very good to watch.
Actor Review
Brittany Snow: Carley is the law student that is about to graduate but without her father seeing the important part of her life. She finds herself on the wrong end of a carjacking where she must tend to the wounds Lena has received. Brittany showed she can pull off a serious role to go against her more commercial roles.carley
Christian Serratos: Lena is a fellow student that is having an awful day when she discovers her boyfriend is seeing someone else, she then wrecks her car and just wanting to go home she finds herself injured during a carjacking. Christian is great in this role even with half of the film she finds herself injured.
J Michael Trautmann: Kevin is an angry young man who lives with his constantly abused mother while trying to impress the local gang. He is good friends with Dre who tries to calm him down but this only leads to him jacking Carley’s car putting Dre’s future at risk too. J is also great in this role showing how easily young men can be pushed into committing crimes.
Evan Ross: Dre is a young man from the wrong neighbourhood who has achieved something by graduating and wants to show Kevin the future he could one day have. He ends up being the driver in the carjacking but wants to do the right thing. Evan gives us a great performance where he shines through.dre
Support Cast: 96 Minutes has a supporting cast that really works well with our main four characters.
Director Review: Aimee Lagos – Aimee gives us a powerful drama that keeps us on edge wondering what is happens next.
Thriller: 96 Minutes keeps us wondering what will happen to our characters next as the story unfolds.
Settings: 96 Minutes shows the two worlds clashing with two boys coming from the wrong side of town trying to make their own future while the girls show where the next stage will be.
Suggestion: 96 Minutes is one I think everyone should watch at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: Jumping between the two sometimes comes off confusing.
Believability: Inspired by true events.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: Out of options. Out of control. Out of time.
Overall: Brilliant drama that really sucks you in to see one life changing events.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/31/96-minutes-2011/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Good Time (2017) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Here is another example of a very watchable low budget film that may have passed by your radar undetected. It came to my attention in two ways. The first because I disliked Uncut Gems so much folk started telling me to watch Good Time to get a better idea of what the Safdie brothers were all about. The second because Robert Pattinson kept popping up and being good in things, when again, there was a time I wouldn’t have thought that possible.
Josh and Benny Safdie have a lot of energy as filmmakers it seems; if the two films I’ve seen so far indicate a motif then it is people forced to act without much thought when the stakes are pretty much life and death. A raw, desperate energy exists in their work that comes straight at you through the screen. In Uncut Gems I found they pushed that feeling too hard, and what we were left with was a massively uncomfortable experience that felt like drinking too much coffee and then being screamed at by someone you hated. Good Time tempers that a little by having a protagonist whose motives you can at least identify with, played by a better, less shouty, more subtle and more likeable actor.
The plot revolves around Pattinson’s Connie frantically trying to find and save his mentally challenged brother, Nick, played by co-director Benny Safdie, after forcing him to participate in a bank robbery that goes wrong. Safdie as an actor is superb and memorable in the role, as is Pattinson. The chemistry between the two is simultaneously edgy, heartbreaking and somehow genuine. You believe they are brothers and invest in it – feeling Nick’s guilt and need to atone driving every bad decision along the grimy path he treads through the seedier parts of the city.
The camerawork and direction make the lights and sounds of the city a character in itself. It may not be true, but I see this film in my head, now as I think of it, as being 90% at night, lit by flashing headlights. Certainly that feel of running head-on into traffic is a big part of it. But there are slower, more sensitive scenes that spring to mind too. Constantly we are being asked if we can forgive Nick, or at least understand why he is making the choices he is making. Essentially he wants the panic to stop, but can’t ever get himself to a place of peace. An idea beautifully illustrated in the scenes involving the female characters of Corey and Crystal (the former played by Jennifer Jason Leigh with typical edge); Nick wants to be loved and respected, but how will that ever be possible?
Contrasting Pattinson’s work here with other recent efforts, including Tenet, The Lighthouse and The Lost City of Z, you can see an impressive range where his true personality disappears into his character. Something not every actor can do by any means, and something Adam Sandler failed to do in Uncut Gems, for example. I continue to be more impressed by him from film to film, to the extent that if I saw him in a cast it would be reason enough to see something. He has that ability to make an average film watchable, often being the best thing about the project. And I have to admit that has surprised me. But I like Kristen Stewart too these days, so it just shows how much the Twilight franchise has to answer for!
I wouldn’t go mad recommending this to everyone, but there is a time and a place for it, and I’m pleased I can appreciate the talent and potential the Safdie Brothers have inherently. There certainly aren’t enough young filmmakers taking risks in this way any more. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see their formula strike true gold before too long.
Josh and Benny Safdie have a lot of energy as filmmakers it seems; if the two films I’ve seen so far indicate a motif then it is people forced to act without much thought when the stakes are pretty much life and death. A raw, desperate energy exists in their work that comes straight at you through the screen. In Uncut Gems I found they pushed that feeling too hard, and what we were left with was a massively uncomfortable experience that felt like drinking too much coffee and then being screamed at by someone you hated. Good Time tempers that a little by having a protagonist whose motives you can at least identify with, played by a better, less shouty, more subtle and more likeable actor.
The plot revolves around Pattinson’s Connie frantically trying to find and save his mentally challenged brother, Nick, played by co-director Benny Safdie, after forcing him to participate in a bank robbery that goes wrong. Safdie as an actor is superb and memorable in the role, as is Pattinson. The chemistry between the two is simultaneously edgy, heartbreaking and somehow genuine. You believe they are brothers and invest in it – feeling Nick’s guilt and need to atone driving every bad decision along the grimy path he treads through the seedier parts of the city.
The camerawork and direction make the lights and sounds of the city a character in itself. It may not be true, but I see this film in my head, now as I think of it, as being 90% at night, lit by flashing headlights. Certainly that feel of running head-on into traffic is a big part of it. But there are slower, more sensitive scenes that spring to mind too. Constantly we are being asked if we can forgive Nick, or at least understand why he is making the choices he is making. Essentially he wants the panic to stop, but can’t ever get himself to a place of peace. An idea beautifully illustrated in the scenes involving the female characters of Corey and Crystal (the former played by Jennifer Jason Leigh with typical edge); Nick wants to be loved and respected, but how will that ever be possible?
Contrasting Pattinson’s work here with other recent efforts, including Tenet, The Lighthouse and The Lost City of Z, you can see an impressive range where his true personality disappears into his character. Something not every actor can do by any means, and something Adam Sandler failed to do in Uncut Gems, for example. I continue to be more impressed by him from film to film, to the extent that if I saw him in a cast it would be reason enough to see something. He has that ability to make an average film watchable, often being the best thing about the project. And I have to admit that has surprised me. But I like Kristen Stewart too these days, so it just shows how much the Twilight franchise has to answer for!
I wouldn’t go mad recommending this to everyone, but there is a time and a place for it, and I’m pleased I can appreciate the talent and potential the Safdie Brothers have inherently. There certainly aren’t enough young filmmakers taking risks in this way any more. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to see their formula strike true gold before too long.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Black Swan (2010) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Darren Aronofsky has been circling movie news sites pretty frequently as of late. He recently signed on to direct the stand-alone sequel to Wolverine (appropriately titled The Wolverine). He also developed a rather large and devoted fanbase over the course of directing fantastically surreal films such as Pi, Requiem for a Dream, and The Wrestler, but his psychological thriller Black Swan has also been gaining quite a bit of steam leading up to its December 3rd release. Despite Aronofsky's already well-established reputation and the rather high anticipation for the film, Black Swan still delivers a product that is even better than expected.
Like most ballerinas, Nina (Portman) lives, breathes, and is completely devoted to dance. Artistic director Thomas Leroy (Cassel) is preparing a new spring production of his interpretation of Swan Lake. Nina is next in line to become prima ballerina after the former dancer to hold that spot, Beth Macintyre (Ryder), reluctantly retires. Everything seems to be shifting in that direction until a rather unorthodox, provocative, and unstable (in a dangerous kind of way) dancer named Lily (Kunis) arrives. Lily seems to have an eye for Nina's spot as soon as she walks through the door. Thomas begins to see Nina as the White Swan, which signifies innocence and perfection and Lily as the Black Swan, which is more sensual and deceptive. The problem is that one dancer is required to play both parts. Other than the stiff competition she has to deal with, The Swan Queen role begins to take its toll on Nina who begins to think Lily wants even more than her spot in the production. Nina's obsessive behavior leads to her releasing her dark side that she must now struggle to control.
Aronofsky has always had an exceptional eye for cinematography in his films. His use of micro-photography in The Fountain made the entire film a visually stunning spectacle that will stand the test of time while something like a someone's pupil dilating or a drug deal gone bad in Requiem for a Dream is memorable because of the way and angle Aronofsky shot it rather than relying on its disturbing content to make the scene a classic. Black Swan is no different. Being placed behind Nina whenever she heads to the dance venue gives the viewer a rather unique third person perspective that also gives the impression that you're walking right behind the main character of the film. The intense dream sequences are also shot in a way that flawlessly blur the line between reality and hallucination. Is this really happening or is it all a figment of Nina's deteriorating imagination? Figuring that out is half the film's charm.
The extraordinary main cast is the main ingredient to the film being as great as it is though. The key players all seem to have this twisted side to them that is nearly the exact opposite of the way they first appear to be, which coincides with the Swan Lake theme. Winona Ryder steals most of the screen time she's given whether she's trashing her dressing room, yelling obscenities in Portman's face, or sitting in a hospital room. Even though Mila Kunis seems to play nothing more than her role in Forgetting Sarah Marshall to the most extreme degree on the surface, it's the edge she's given that results in unpredictablity for her character. While Vincent Cassel's performance is strong thanks to his sensual reputation with his dancers and Barbara Hersey is both charming and disturbing as Nina's mother who seems to secretly be trying to live in her daughter's dance shoes after a missed opportunity in her past, it's no surprise to hear that Natalie Portman is the heart of the film. Nina is so consumed with dance that she keeps pushing herself even when her mind and body begin to show her that she's had enough. Her breakdowns are heartbreaking and engaging to watch while her transformation by the end of the film can best be described as a monstrous beauty. It's all thanks to Portman's powerful, phenomenal, tour de force performance.
While some might not be surprised that Aronofsky has created another masterpiece, this may be his most solid and well-rounded film to date. Black Swan is a beautiful, disturbing, and captivating work of art that features gorgeous camera work, an excellent and mindbending story, and one of Natalie Portman's best performances.
Like most ballerinas, Nina (Portman) lives, breathes, and is completely devoted to dance. Artistic director Thomas Leroy (Cassel) is preparing a new spring production of his interpretation of Swan Lake. Nina is next in line to become prima ballerina after the former dancer to hold that spot, Beth Macintyre (Ryder), reluctantly retires. Everything seems to be shifting in that direction until a rather unorthodox, provocative, and unstable (in a dangerous kind of way) dancer named Lily (Kunis) arrives. Lily seems to have an eye for Nina's spot as soon as she walks through the door. Thomas begins to see Nina as the White Swan, which signifies innocence and perfection and Lily as the Black Swan, which is more sensual and deceptive. The problem is that one dancer is required to play both parts. Other than the stiff competition she has to deal with, The Swan Queen role begins to take its toll on Nina who begins to think Lily wants even more than her spot in the production. Nina's obsessive behavior leads to her releasing her dark side that she must now struggle to control.
Aronofsky has always had an exceptional eye for cinematography in his films. His use of micro-photography in The Fountain made the entire film a visually stunning spectacle that will stand the test of time while something like a someone's pupil dilating or a drug deal gone bad in Requiem for a Dream is memorable because of the way and angle Aronofsky shot it rather than relying on its disturbing content to make the scene a classic. Black Swan is no different. Being placed behind Nina whenever she heads to the dance venue gives the viewer a rather unique third person perspective that also gives the impression that you're walking right behind the main character of the film. The intense dream sequences are also shot in a way that flawlessly blur the line between reality and hallucination. Is this really happening or is it all a figment of Nina's deteriorating imagination? Figuring that out is half the film's charm.
The extraordinary main cast is the main ingredient to the film being as great as it is though. The key players all seem to have this twisted side to them that is nearly the exact opposite of the way they first appear to be, which coincides with the Swan Lake theme. Winona Ryder steals most of the screen time she's given whether she's trashing her dressing room, yelling obscenities in Portman's face, or sitting in a hospital room. Even though Mila Kunis seems to play nothing more than her role in Forgetting Sarah Marshall to the most extreme degree on the surface, it's the edge she's given that results in unpredictablity for her character. While Vincent Cassel's performance is strong thanks to his sensual reputation with his dancers and Barbara Hersey is both charming and disturbing as Nina's mother who seems to secretly be trying to live in her daughter's dance shoes after a missed opportunity in her past, it's no surprise to hear that Natalie Portman is the heart of the film. Nina is so consumed with dance that she keeps pushing herself even when her mind and body begin to show her that she's had enough. Her breakdowns are heartbreaking and engaging to watch while her transformation by the end of the film can best be described as a monstrous beauty. It's all thanks to Portman's powerful, phenomenal, tour de force performance.
While some might not be surprised that Aronofsky has created another masterpiece, this may be his most solid and well-rounded film to date. Black Swan is a beautiful, disturbing, and captivating work of art that features gorgeous camera work, an excellent and mindbending story, and one of Natalie Portman's best performances.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated La La Land (2016) in Movies
Jun 2, 2020
Let me give you the background on this one. Many years ago (when La La Land was due out in the cinemas) ITV2 were showing the new series of Scorpion in their prime time drama spot, this feature was sponsored by something and quite often that's a film. For the season's entire run it was sponsored by... you guessed it... La La Land. Every episode you'd have to see up to 8 clips of the film without any real context about what it was, and worst of all there was very little deviation, you could be seeing the same clip over and over again for 20 or so episodes. I love musicals and I love Emma Stone but this pushed me so far over the edge that I swore I'd never watch it. (The same goes for Moulin Rouge which I also now have to watch) Evidently though I'm a grown ass adult and can't hold petty grudges against films so now I have to watch them... partially so I can make other people watch films they don't want to watch in an underhanded deal on Twitter.
But I digress.
When Mia and Sebastian's lives cross unexpectedly it is impossible to know how much the future will change for both of them. What at first is a wholesome whirlwind of romance begins to fall apart as their careers progress and pull them apart.
At its heart it's a simple romance story for Mia and Sebastian as they build each other up for the lives they want and the perils that that brings, but when you add the extra depth into it all with the music it takes on a whole other dimension. As a spoiler alert for my take on the film, at one point I had to stop and I just wrote in my notes "oh god, why am I crying?!" That wasn't a feeling I had throughout the film though, in fact, straight off the bat I thought I was going to hate the film because of that opening musical number. That number made no impact on me and I was massively concerned, thankfully that didn't hold true for the next number.
On the acting... Emma Stone is glorious and should be in everything... end of review... okay, fine. I loved the way she made Mia come to life, she's fun, got some sass to her and I loved the way she behaved through her auditions. Emma Stone may be my spirit animal, I absolutely love her.
And then there's Ryan Gosling... As an indication of how I feel about him please accept this reenactment of a recent conversation:
Friend: Did you see they're talking about the new Wolfman movie?
Me: Oh my god, really?! Yay! It'll be great!
Friend: Yeah, it's going to have Ryan Gosling in it!
Me: *crickets chirp and a tumbleweed bounces past*
His acting does nothing for me. It's very much the Brad Pitt style of acting without the humour, he always acts the same way, but... I would genuinely say this is the first of his films I've seen where it felt like he was acting. I genuinely enjoyed him in it, it didn't feel like he was hiding all his emotions in a box in his dressing room. I was so thankful.
The chemistry between the pair was brilliant and that really helped carry me through the film. With lots of musical numbers and elaborate looking sets to deal with I was worried that it might end up looking more like theatre than film, it obviously does have that vibe because that's part of the idea but it flowed incredibly well.
La La Land has a wonderful feel to it with vibrant sets and costumes, it gives a glow of the old school and this works incredibly well with the jazz side of the story. This, however, is part of my main problem with the film.
You've got the golden age vibe with the colours and the music, but the modern creeps in everywhere and I wasn't a fan of this mix. Every time it popped up I noticed it and it made me frown. That being said, I don't know if it would have worked being an entirely modern film but it could easily have gone back in time and lived happily ever after.
Even with me disliking that part of the film's story I really enjoyed watching La La Land. It's stunning visually, the music is (mainly) beautiful and I was incredibly surprised by the acting. The moral of this story is don't let excessive advertising put you off something.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/la-la-land-movie-review.html
But I digress.
When Mia and Sebastian's lives cross unexpectedly it is impossible to know how much the future will change for both of them. What at first is a wholesome whirlwind of romance begins to fall apart as their careers progress and pull them apart.
At its heart it's a simple romance story for Mia and Sebastian as they build each other up for the lives they want and the perils that that brings, but when you add the extra depth into it all with the music it takes on a whole other dimension. As a spoiler alert for my take on the film, at one point I had to stop and I just wrote in my notes "oh god, why am I crying?!" That wasn't a feeling I had throughout the film though, in fact, straight off the bat I thought I was going to hate the film because of that opening musical number. That number made no impact on me and I was massively concerned, thankfully that didn't hold true for the next number.
On the acting... Emma Stone is glorious and should be in everything... end of review... okay, fine. I loved the way she made Mia come to life, she's fun, got some sass to her and I loved the way she behaved through her auditions. Emma Stone may be my spirit animal, I absolutely love her.
And then there's Ryan Gosling... As an indication of how I feel about him please accept this reenactment of a recent conversation:
Friend: Did you see they're talking about the new Wolfman movie?
Me: Oh my god, really?! Yay! It'll be great!
Friend: Yeah, it's going to have Ryan Gosling in it!
Me: *crickets chirp and a tumbleweed bounces past*
His acting does nothing for me. It's very much the Brad Pitt style of acting without the humour, he always acts the same way, but... I would genuinely say this is the first of his films I've seen where it felt like he was acting. I genuinely enjoyed him in it, it didn't feel like he was hiding all his emotions in a box in his dressing room. I was so thankful.
The chemistry between the pair was brilliant and that really helped carry me through the film. With lots of musical numbers and elaborate looking sets to deal with I was worried that it might end up looking more like theatre than film, it obviously does have that vibe because that's part of the idea but it flowed incredibly well.
La La Land has a wonderful feel to it with vibrant sets and costumes, it gives a glow of the old school and this works incredibly well with the jazz side of the story. This, however, is part of my main problem with the film.
You've got the golden age vibe with the colours and the music, but the modern creeps in everywhere and I wasn't a fan of this mix. Every time it popped up I noticed it and it made me frown. That being said, I don't know if it would have worked being an entirely modern film but it could easily have gone back in time and lived happily ever after.
Even with me disliking that part of the film's story I really enjoyed watching La La Land. It's stunning visually, the music is (mainly) beautiful and I was incredibly surprised by the acting. The moral of this story is don't let excessive advertising put you off something.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/la-la-land-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated We're The Millers (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Life for petty drug dealer David Clark (Jason Sudeikes) is a fairly routine existence. He has his regular customers and makes his living selling small quantities of marijuana to his regulars while maintaining his ethical standards not to sell to children. David had fallen into this line of work in college and is managed to get by and save $20,000 for himself. David’s former college cohort Brad (Ed Helms) is his major supplier and unlike David, Brad has grown extremely wealthy and powerful through letting people like David do the dirty work.
David has long held a torch for his neighbor Rose (Jennifer Aniston), a stripper with a heart of gold who seems only successful at attracting loser boyfriends and maintaining her disdain for David.
When a local homeless girl named Casey (Emma Roberts), is accosted in front of his apartment building, David reluctantly comes to the aid of a well-intentioned dork named Kenny (Will Poulter), who has a habit of acting without thinking. Since Kenny is one of David’s neighbors and despite his geeky nature a good kid, David reluctantly becomes involved and soon finds himself the target of the assailants. Adding insult to injury, the robbers take all his money and drug supplies, including his savings.
Unable to pay Brad for what was taken, David reluctantly enters into an agreement where he traveled to Mexico and return a quantity of marijuana for Brad who in turn will wipe his debts clean and pay him for his efforts. Not wanting to end up in jail but seeing no other way out of his predicament, David enlists Casey, Kenny, and a reluctant but desperate Rose to pose as his all-American family for the trip in an effort to throw off any customs or law enforcement officials would be suspicious of David traveling alone.
Things seem to go smoothly at first despite tensions amongst the ad hoc family and despite a rendezvous with some scary individuals; they soon find their R.V. loaded to the max with bundles of drugs. This development panics David as he was expecting to transport only a modest amount across the border and realizes that being discovered with the quantities he’s attempting to smuggle into the country would result in some serious jail time.
Undaunted, the family who dubbed themselves the Miller’s continue with the plan which results in a series of humorous misfortunes along the way him including an overzealous RV couple (Nick Offerman and Katheryn Hahn), who just happens to be an active DEA agent with a knack for showing up no matter where the Miller’s go. You race against time with some serious bad guys in pursuit; the Miller’s must come together and put aside their dysfunctions to accomplish their bizarre and wacky mission.
While most people will be able to see the romantic subplots from a mile away what really makes this film shine is the outrageous comedy that is persistent throughout. The best laughs have not been wasted in the trailers which is unfortunately all too common for films of this type and the supporting work of Offerman and Poulter nearly steal the movie. Aniston is essentially playing the same character she plays in almost every one of her performances but at least she gets to take a little bit wilder edge that she teased in last year’s “Horrible Bosses”. Her repair shop striptease is definitely one of the more memorable scenes in the film that has nothing on the tender yet humorous scene or she decides to help Kenny out in regard to his awkwardness with women.
Sudeikes has really been on a roll of late as he not only had a hit with the previously mentioned “Horrible Bosses”, but has done solid work in the interim not the least of which is his outing as the sympathetic Dave. One would think film about drug smugglers, strippers, and other social undesirables would not be so enjoyable nor would characters come across is so endearing and sympathetic. That being said the film was definitely very pleasant supriserites and if you set your expectations accordingly you may find yourself not only laughing along at the outrageous antics but looking forward to spending more time with this crazy group in the future.
http://sknr.net/2013/08/07/were-the-millers/
David has long held a torch for his neighbor Rose (Jennifer Aniston), a stripper with a heart of gold who seems only successful at attracting loser boyfriends and maintaining her disdain for David.
When a local homeless girl named Casey (Emma Roberts), is accosted in front of his apartment building, David reluctantly comes to the aid of a well-intentioned dork named Kenny (Will Poulter), who has a habit of acting without thinking. Since Kenny is one of David’s neighbors and despite his geeky nature a good kid, David reluctantly becomes involved and soon finds himself the target of the assailants. Adding insult to injury, the robbers take all his money and drug supplies, including his savings.
Unable to pay Brad for what was taken, David reluctantly enters into an agreement where he traveled to Mexico and return a quantity of marijuana for Brad who in turn will wipe his debts clean and pay him for his efforts. Not wanting to end up in jail but seeing no other way out of his predicament, David enlists Casey, Kenny, and a reluctant but desperate Rose to pose as his all-American family for the trip in an effort to throw off any customs or law enforcement officials would be suspicious of David traveling alone.
Things seem to go smoothly at first despite tensions amongst the ad hoc family and despite a rendezvous with some scary individuals; they soon find their R.V. loaded to the max with bundles of drugs. This development panics David as he was expecting to transport only a modest amount across the border and realizes that being discovered with the quantities he’s attempting to smuggle into the country would result in some serious jail time.
Undaunted, the family who dubbed themselves the Miller’s continue with the plan which results in a series of humorous misfortunes along the way him including an overzealous RV couple (Nick Offerman and Katheryn Hahn), who just happens to be an active DEA agent with a knack for showing up no matter where the Miller’s go. You race against time with some serious bad guys in pursuit; the Miller’s must come together and put aside their dysfunctions to accomplish their bizarre and wacky mission.
While most people will be able to see the romantic subplots from a mile away what really makes this film shine is the outrageous comedy that is persistent throughout. The best laughs have not been wasted in the trailers which is unfortunately all too common for films of this type and the supporting work of Offerman and Poulter nearly steal the movie. Aniston is essentially playing the same character she plays in almost every one of her performances but at least she gets to take a little bit wilder edge that she teased in last year’s “Horrible Bosses”. Her repair shop striptease is definitely one of the more memorable scenes in the film that has nothing on the tender yet humorous scene or she decides to help Kenny out in regard to his awkwardness with women.
Sudeikes has really been on a roll of late as he not only had a hit with the previously mentioned “Horrible Bosses”, but has done solid work in the interim not the least of which is his outing as the sympathetic Dave. One would think film about drug smugglers, strippers, and other social undesirables would not be so enjoyable nor would characters come across is so endearing and sympathetic. That being said the film was definitely very pleasant supriserites and if you set your expectations accordingly you may find yourself not only laughing along at the outrageous antics but looking forward to spending more time with this crazy group in the future.
http://sknr.net/2013/08/07/were-the-millers/