Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018
All time classic
"I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!"
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Alpha (Shifters, #6) in Books
Mar 1, 2018
Well, that was disappointing. I'm honestly sorry that I ever read that first book (which I got free somehow?). I remember being annoyed at the spelling of the main character's name, "Faythe." I should have stopped then.
The way the plot wound up, for the most part, had no real surprises. Anybody who has followed the series has to have figured out what was going to happen by now. It's been foreshadowed - heck, shouted from the rooftops.
No, my disappointment is in the way the damned romance thing was handled.
If you've bothered to read this but haven't read the series, I'm surprised. Anyway, we have a classic love triangle between Faythe, Marc, and Jace. The setting is supposed to be current day America with a twist - the characters are werecats, part of a hidden subculture.
We all know that mainstream Americans are supposedly monogamous but more serially monogamous and closet - something - in practice. Anyway, werecat society is fiercely monogamous. Females are rare, and they're supposed to hit puberty, get married, and produce the next generation with their One True Love. Period. No other options.
So Faythe has defied tradition so far. She went to college. Good for her! She had a boyfriend there. Even better! A non-Pride boyfriend. Great! (To my way of thinking, not her subculture's). She left her guy, Marc, standing at the altar to do all that, though. Eww - not classy.
But after she goes back home, she gets back together with Marc. Hmph.
Then she "connects" with Jace. That means "has sex with." Ooo, bad idea, since she was in a committed relationship with Marc at the time. Very bad idea. But Oh, They were Grieving! Together! For her brother and his best friend, who had just been treacherously killed by enemies! So of course the way to do that, instead of talking about their memories of him, is to roll around naked in the middle of a public room, right?
Um, not the way I'd do it, but, apparently that's their way. They do their grieving with a lot more alcohol than I would too, though.
They don't get caught, at least - not then. No, an enemy figures it out due to how the three interact, and tells Marc, and he believes the enemy (because everybody believes enemies over allies in the heat of battle). And they're all too immature to put the crap behind them and just deal with the fact that they're in the middle of a "war," too.
I kept wanting to spank all of them, and it wasn't because I found any of them sexy.
I did hope, at first, that bringing Jace in as a love interest - and Faythe does repeat, over and over and over again, that she loves Jace, that it wasn't "just sex" - might mean that there was hope for some sort of surprise in the end of the book. That would have been nice, right? Something of a twist that didn't lead to an unhappy ending? I would have loved to see that!
She's going to be the first female Alpha, so why not the first Alpha with two husbands? She'll be the first Alpha who has to deal with pregnancy, so why not have one husband to protect her while she's pregnant and another to get deal with what has to be done in person? What a concept?
My hope was buoyed by the fact that Vincent deliberately developed Jase as a decent potential partner, showing him taking care of Faythe well when she's injured, supporting her as she would need to be supporting when she takes over the Pride as Alpha, and working well with Marc and others repeatedly.
Marc, on the other hand, is a jerk, slamming doors, stomping around, and doing everything but pissing on the furniture to mark his territory.
Just once, I want to see a hero or heroine walk away when someone says, "I cant live without you!" I want to see someone say, "Whoa - that's WAY unhealthy, babe! You need THERAPY!"
Instead, Faythe's father tells her to "Choose the one you can't live without." UGH. Thanks, Daddy! Codependent much?
Do I think she chose the wrong Tom? Absolutely. But - she's a spoiled brat, and she chose a jealous ass. They deserve each other. Let the sweet, loving man go find the sweet, loving woman he deserves. Hopefully he'll stop the drunken escapades and keep it in his pants from now on. Maybe Kaci will grow up to be his Tabby?
Anyway, there you have it. Volume Eleventy Billion and thirteen of How To Do Dysfunctional Relationships.
Next, please!
The way the plot wound up, for the most part, had no real surprises. Anybody who has followed the series has to have figured out what was going to happen by now. It's been foreshadowed - heck, shouted from the rooftops.
No, my disappointment is in the way the damned romance thing was handled.
If you've bothered to read this but haven't read the series, I'm surprised. Anyway, we have a classic love triangle between Faythe, Marc, and Jace. The setting is supposed to be current day America with a twist - the characters are werecats, part of a hidden subculture.
We all know that mainstream Americans are supposedly monogamous but more serially monogamous and closet - something - in practice. Anyway, werecat society is fiercely monogamous. Females are rare, and they're supposed to hit puberty, get married, and produce the next generation with their One True Love. Period. No other options.
So Faythe has defied tradition so far. She went to college. Good for her! She had a boyfriend there. Even better! A non-Pride boyfriend. Great! (To my way of thinking, not her subculture's). She left her guy, Marc, standing at the altar to do all that, though. Eww - not classy.
But after she goes back home, she gets back together with Marc. Hmph.
Then she "connects" with Jace. That means "has sex with." Ooo, bad idea, since she was in a committed relationship with Marc at the time. Very bad idea. But Oh, They were Grieving! Together! For her brother and his best friend, who had just been treacherously killed by enemies! So of course the way to do that, instead of talking about their memories of him, is to roll around naked in the middle of a public room, right?
Um, not the way I'd do it, but, apparently that's their way. They do their grieving with a lot more alcohol than I would too, though.
They don't get caught, at least - not then. No, an enemy figures it out due to how the three interact, and tells Marc, and he believes the enemy (because everybody believes enemies over allies in the heat of battle). And they're all too immature to put the crap behind them and just deal with the fact that they're in the middle of a "war," too.
I kept wanting to spank all of them, and it wasn't because I found any of them sexy.
I did hope, at first, that bringing Jace in as a love interest - and Faythe does repeat, over and over and over again, that she loves Jace, that it wasn't "just sex" - might mean that there was hope for some sort of surprise in the end of the book. That would have been nice, right? Something of a twist that didn't lead to an unhappy ending? I would have loved to see that!
She's going to be the first female Alpha, so why not the first Alpha with two husbands? She'll be the first Alpha who has to deal with pregnancy, so why not have one husband to protect her while she's pregnant and another to get deal with what has to be done in person? What a concept?
My hope was buoyed by the fact that Vincent deliberately developed Jase as a decent potential partner, showing him taking care of Faythe well when she's injured, supporting her as she would need to be supporting when she takes over the Pride as Alpha, and working well with Marc and others repeatedly.
Marc, on the other hand, is a jerk, slamming doors, stomping around, and doing everything but pissing on the furniture to mark his territory.
Just once, I want to see a hero or heroine walk away when someone says, "I cant live without you!" I want to see someone say, "Whoa - that's WAY unhealthy, babe! You need THERAPY!"
Instead, Faythe's father tells her to "Choose the one you can't live without." UGH. Thanks, Daddy! Codependent much?
Do I think she chose the wrong Tom? Absolutely. But - she's a spoiled brat, and she chose a jealous ass. They deserve each other. Let the sweet, loving man go find the sweet, loving woman he deserves. Hopefully he'll stop the drunken escapades and keep it in his pants from now on. Maybe Kaci will grow up to be his Tabby?
Anyway, there you have it. Volume Eleventy Billion and thirteen of How To Do Dysfunctional Relationships.
Next, please!
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Avengers (2012) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Wow!
Contains spoilers, click to show
First of all I will not be referring to this film by the crap UK name of Avengers Assembled. The film is The Avengers and that all it needs to be called.
This is biggest and most anticipated film from the last few years. It is a sequel to the Marvel films Iron Man (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America (2011) and The Incredible Hulk (2008). But is it possible to make one film starring them all? Would it work with all of them in lead roles? The film brings together Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans) & The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) along with S.H.I.E.L.D. agents Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). They join forces against Thor's Brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) who has unleashed an alien race upon the Earth so he can conquer it.
As many of you will know by now, I am a huge action movie and comic adaption fan, so this film exactly what I was looking for. I kept away from many reviews and possible spoilers. However I had to see the trailers. After seeing them and being blown away I got a little worried for the film. Many trailers use so much of the action and plot that they show most of the good parts of the film. I really hoped that this wouldn't happen with this one. I wanted this film to be good.
After the first 5 minutes I was worried. The film started out well but there was a really really bad camera cut/edit. For a film fan it stood out and slapped me in the face. I started to worry that it was a sign of things to come. However my fears were soon dispelled as the film sucked me in with outstanding direction, visuals and 3D effects like I have never seen before. The way the film was prepared starting out with Iron Man in 2008 and then tying in all the following films together are a big lead up to this one. A huge gamble but it really paid off. The outstanding cast work so well together. With all these larger than life characters already having their own individual stories told, all what was left was to bring them together. But first they start out against each other. Their individual egos explode as they battle each other with explosive devastation. Soon they all share a common goal and start to band together. Then the film really lets to. Up until this point it was amazing. When they finally start working together that's when an amazing movie exceeds all expectations and takes the superhero genre to a level never before seen. This is also the point then the 3D effects take on a whole new level. Prior to this they were used for depth and clarity of the film very well, but now it bring you in to the film and doesn't let go. The greatest effect is an alien ship appearing from over your head. It actually startled me as it appeared above my head before it was on the screen. Never before outside of a theme park has a 3D film managed this.
Fortunately it didn't just meet my expectations, it exceeded them more than I ever thought possible. I really can't find the right words to convey how good this film really is. It has moments where you laugh so hard you cry, amazingly the best of these involve The Hulk! There are moments where you find yourself holding your breath at the sheer scope of what you are seeing. The action raises the bar for the genre to maybe unattainable heights. This film is so very good.
I usually rate films on a scale of 1-10 but 10 feels inadequate for this. So for this one I am using 1-100. This film scores a 99. Only losing out on 100 due to the single bad edit at the start of the film. Joss Whedon has managed the impossible with this film and pulled of a film no one expected to be so good. For this reason and for the first time my stand out performance is the director Joss Whedon, for creating a perfect superhero movie.
You have to see this on the biggest screen you can find and in 3D
This is biggest and most anticipated film from the last few years. It is a sequel to the Marvel films Iron Man (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America (2011) and The Incredible Hulk (2008). But is it possible to make one film starring them all? Would it work with all of them in lead roles? The film brings together Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans) & The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) along with S.H.I.E.L.D. agents Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). They join forces against Thor's Brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) who has unleashed an alien race upon the Earth so he can conquer it.
As many of you will know by now, I am a huge action movie and comic adaption fan, so this film exactly what I was looking for. I kept away from many reviews and possible spoilers. However I had to see the trailers. After seeing them and being blown away I got a little worried for the film. Many trailers use so much of the action and plot that they show most of the good parts of the film. I really hoped that this wouldn't happen with this one. I wanted this film to be good.
After the first 5 minutes I was worried. The film started out well but there was a really really bad camera cut/edit. For a film fan it stood out and slapped me in the face. I started to worry that it was a sign of things to come. However my fears were soon dispelled as the film sucked me in with outstanding direction, visuals and 3D effects like I have never seen before. The way the film was prepared starting out with Iron Man in 2008 and then tying in all the following films together are a big lead up to this one. A huge gamble but it really paid off. The outstanding cast work so well together. With all these larger than life characters already having their own individual stories told, all what was left was to bring them together. But first they start out against each other. Their individual egos explode as they battle each other with explosive devastation. Soon they all share a common goal and start to band together. Then the film really lets to. Up until this point it was amazing. When they finally start working together that's when an amazing movie exceeds all expectations and takes the superhero genre to a level never before seen. This is also the point then the 3D effects take on a whole new level. Prior to this they were used for depth and clarity of the film very well, but now it bring you in to the film and doesn't let go. The greatest effect is an alien ship appearing from over your head. It actually startled me as it appeared above my head before it was on the screen. Never before outside of a theme park has a 3D film managed this.
Fortunately it didn't just meet my expectations, it exceeded them more than I ever thought possible. I really can't find the right words to convey how good this film really is. It has moments where you laugh so hard you cry, amazingly the best of these involve The Hulk! There are moments where you find yourself holding your breath at the sheer scope of what you are seeing. The action raises the bar for the genre to maybe unattainable heights. This film is so very good.
I usually rate films on a scale of 1-10 but 10 feels inadequate for this. So for this one I am using 1-100. This film scores a 99. Only losing out on 100 due to the single bad edit at the start of the film. Joss Whedon has managed the impossible with this film and pulled of a film no one expected to be so good. For this reason and for the first time my stand out performance is the director Joss Whedon, for creating a perfect superhero movie.
You have to see this on the biggest screen you can find and in 3D
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Godfather (1972) in Movies
Dec 3, 2018
Epic Indeed
What makes a film stand the test of time? How do you create a movie that will have the same impact today as it will fifty years from now? That’s almost how long it’s been since The Godfather was released. Can you believe that? It was a classic then and still remains to be so. It follows the story of the Corleone family, a prominent mob family in New York. Michael (Al Pacino), youngest son of Godfather Vito (Marlon Brando), is trying to stay away from the “family business” but finds himself thrust right in the middle after a mob war erupts.
Acting: 10You couldn’t ask for a better cast than within that of The Godfather. Brando captures your attention from jump, smooth yet broiling with passion. He comes off as the type that can handle any situation but doesn’t need to do so to prove himself.
Pacino is phenomenal in his role as Michael. You can feel the weight of his innocence as he finds himself in the middle of things he vowed to stay away from. One of my favorite scenes involves him having to kill someone in a restaurant. When he goes to the bathroom to grab the gun (where it’s stashed in a stall), he is pacing and nervous. As a viewer, you can sense his struggle. He knows that once he does this, there is no going back. It’s incredible to watch his transformation over time as he ascends to power. You can see him becoming what his father was.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Vito and Michael are just a taste of the rich characters that keep the film fresh even to this day. You’ve got Sonny the firstborn, quick to drop a hit or do whatever it takes to protect his family. You find out exactly what that means when he confronts his sister’s abusive husband in the streets threatening to blow his head off.
Then you have a guy like Tom Hagen, the soft-spoken consigliere of the family. He brings a voice of reason to the chaos surrounding the Corleone family. He wants badly to be an official part of the family but can’t because of his Irish descent. As a result, it makes him work twice as hard.
These characters aren’t just one-dimensional, but they carry enough layers to singlehandedly move their own story. Through each of these characters you understand what it means to be a Corleone and how each of them play a specific part to complete the whole.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
If the characters are what enhance the movie, conflict is what ultimately drives it. Sometimes the intensity is subtle while other times it’s loud and boisterous. It’s always there because you understand as a viewer that lives are always on the line, always at stake. The mafia families are playing for power and, most importantly, they are playing for keeps. There are so many great action sequences that stick out in my mind. There is no shortage of death and every death in this film comes with a meaning and a price.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
When a movie is pushing three hours or goes 3+, I’m usually thinking how they could have shortened things. Not only was the runtime necessary here, but The Godfather runs at a consistent smooth pace. It manages itself by keeping you on high alert in some scenes then reining you back in for the next scene.
I remember watching one intense scene where Michael was protecting his father in the hospital. I remember thinking, “Thank God the entire movie is not like this! I would have a heartattack.” Though the film is long, I would have gladly watched another hour if it had been tacked on.
Plot: 9
Enough of the love fest. Time for my one itty bitty gripe. There were a couple of occasions where I found it difficult to keep up with the families, in some cases the Corleones themselves. The plot tripped me up in spots but it was nothing close to ruining an amazing experience.
Resolution: 10The ending of this film is one for the ages, a powerful scene that will stand out in your mind for a long time. It’s the passing of a torch, but the way is unfolds is just so damn cool! I don’t want to ruin it for those that haven’t seen, but for those that have, you know exactly what I mean.
Overal: 99
Classic. I can’t believe it took me this long to watch it. I have to say, it was well worth the wait.
Acting: 10You couldn’t ask for a better cast than within that of The Godfather. Brando captures your attention from jump, smooth yet broiling with passion. He comes off as the type that can handle any situation but doesn’t need to do so to prove himself.
Pacino is phenomenal in his role as Michael. You can feel the weight of his innocence as he finds himself in the middle of things he vowed to stay away from. One of my favorite scenes involves him having to kill someone in a restaurant. When he goes to the bathroom to grab the gun (where it’s stashed in a stall), he is pacing and nervous. As a viewer, you can sense his struggle. He knows that once he does this, there is no going back. It’s incredible to watch his transformation over time as he ascends to power. You can see him becoming what his father was.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Vito and Michael are just a taste of the rich characters that keep the film fresh even to this day. You’ve got Sonny the firstborn, quick to drop a hit or do whatever it takes to protect his family. You find out exactly what that means when he confronts his sister’s abusive husband in the streets threatening to blow his head off.
Then you have a guy like Tom Hagen, the soft-spoken consigliere of the family. He brings a voice of reason to the chaos surrounding the Corleone family. He wants badly to be an official part of the family but can’t because of his Irish descent. As a result, it makes him work twice as hard.
These characters aren’t just one-dimensional, but they carry enough layers to singlehandedly move their own story. Through each of these characters you understand what it means to be a Corleone and how each of them play a specific part to complete the whole.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
If the characters are what enhance the movie, conflict is what ultimately drives it. Sometimes the intensity is subtle while other times it’s loud and boisterous. It’s always there because you understand as a viewer that lives are always on the line, always at stake. The mafia families are playing for power and, most importantly, they are playing for keeps. There are so many great action sequences that stick out in my mind. There is no shortage of death and every death in this film comes with a meaning and a price.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
When a movie is pushing three hours or goes 3+, I’m usually thinking how they could have shortened things. Not only was the runtime necessary here, but The Godfather runs at a consistent smooth pace. It manages itself by keeping you on high alert in some scenes then reining you back in for the next scene.
I remember watching one intense scene where Michael was protecting his father in the hospital. I remember thinking, “Thank God the entire movie is not like this! I would have a heartattack.” Though the film is long, I would have gladly watched another hour if it had been tacked on.
Plot: 9
Enough of the love fest. Time for my one itty bitty gripe. There were a couple of occasions where I found it difficult to keep up with the families, in some cases the Corleones themselves. The plot tripped me up in spots but it was nothing close to ruining an amazing experience.
Resolution: 10The ending of this film is one for the ages, a powerful scene that will stand out in your mind for a long time. It’s the passing of a torch, but the way is unfolds is just so damn cool! I don’t want to ruin it for those that haven’t seen, but for those that have, you know exactly what I mean.
Overal: 99
Classic. I can’t believe it took me this long to watch it. I have to say, it was well worth the wait.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Da Vinci Code (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
No film since “The Last Temptation of Christ” has invoked as much controversy as The Da Vinci Code based on the book of the same name by Dan Brown. Prior to the film even being screened for the press, cries ran out to ban the film and its message that some find blasphemous. Fortunately calmer heads have prevailed and the film by Director Ron Howard has arrived in a wash of media frenzy not seen since Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.
If you are seeing a pattern forming, you would be correct as it seems that few topics can raise ire and wrath more than the topic of religion, especially if the film proposes a viewpoint that differs from the traditional beliefs that are given by the church, bible, and history.
In the film, a monk appears to murder an elderly man who with his last ounces of strength, manages to leave a cryptic riddle on his body. The bizarre nature of the crime prompts French police inspector Fache (Jean Reno) to travel to the Louvre to investigate the crime. A clue at the crime scene causes the police to summer Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) from a lecture hall where he is signing his latest book on symbols. Since the deceased was supposed to meet Langdon earlier in the day Langdon has fallen under suspicion for the crime.
As he attempts to decipher the message at the crime scene, Langdon encounters a police cryptologists named Sophie (Audrey Tautou), who informs Robert that he is in danger and soon the duo are fleeing from the police after deciphering some hidden clues at the crime scene.
Before either Robert or Audrey knows what is happening, they are being accused of multiple murders and on the run. As the clues begin to mount, the mystery takes an even stranger turn by the discovery of an artifact that when unlocked, should contain a map.
Seeking refuge and help, the duo arrive at the estate of Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian Mc Kellen), who proceeds to tell Robert and Sophie that the clues they have uncovered are part of a cover-up that segments of the church will stop at nothing to keep secret. The nature of this secret is such that should it become public knowledge, then they very foundations of history, faith, and the church could be shaken to their core.
As the mystery becomes clearer, the group are attacked by a Monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), who has been doing the violent work of someone know as The Teacher in an effort to discover the location of artifacts and those attempting to uncover the mystery.
What follows is a frantic race that travels from Paris to London in an effort to get to the bottom of the mystery and unravel the true nature of the mystery and the secret that people are willing to kill for in order to protect.
While some may find the mystery, the players, and their motivations confusing, the film does grab hold and moves along at a solid pace. Ron Howard once again shows his skill by directing a film that is different from his other works, yet rich in its visuals and complexity. The scenic locales of the film enhance the mystery (For those who have not read the book), as they attempt to decipher the clues along with the characters.
The work from the cast was solid as Hanks gives a very good if restrained performance in his portrayal. Mc Kellen is a very nice blend of elegance and old world charm that lifts up every scene in which he is in.
While there are those who will lambaste the film for the message it provides, I chose to look at it as a film that does what movies should, entertain and make you think. The film is not saying its assertions are hard and cold facts, what it is doing is providing a vehicle for debate.
In college I was told that through debate comes knowledge and growth for a society. This was common in ancient Greek and Roman society where issues of the day would be debated in open forums. It seems that we as a society have become too insistent to take things at face value and have forgotten that the very nature of the human experience is to question, grow, and seek our own answers. As such the film is a great example of how Hollywood at times gets it right and provides solid entertainment that will stimulate as well as entertain.
If you are seeing a pattern forming, you would be correct as it seems that few topics can raise ire and wrath more than the topic of religion, especially if the film proposes a viewpoint that differs from the traditional beliefs that are given by the church, bible, and history.
In the film, a monk appears to murder an elderly man who with his last ounces of strength, manages to leave a cryptic riddle on his body. The bizarre nature of the crime prompts French police inspector Fache (Jean Reno) to travel to the Louvre to investigate the crime. A clue at the crime scene causes the police to summer Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) from a lecture hall where he is signing his latest book on symbols. Since the deceased was supposed to meet Langdon earlier in the day Langdon has fallen under suspicion for the crime.
As he attempts to decipher the message at the crime scene, Langdon encounters a police cryptologists named Sophie (Audrey Tautou), who informs Robert that he is in danger and soon the duo are fleeing from the police after deciphering some hidden clues at the crime scene.
Before either Robert or Audrey knows what is happening, they are being accused of multiple murders and on the run. As the clues begin to mount, the mystery takes an even stranger turn by the discovery of an artifact that when unlocked, should contain a map.
Seeking refuge and help, the duo arrive at the estate of Sir Leigh Teabing (Sir Ian Mc Kellen), who proceeds to tell Robert and Sophie that the clues they have uncovered are part of a cover-up that segments of the church will stop at nothing to keep secret. The nature of this secret is such that should it become public knowledge, then they very foundations of history, faith, and the church could be shaken to their core.
As the mystery becomes clearer, the group are attacked by a Monk named Silas (Paul Bettany), who has been doing the violent work of someone know as The Teacher in an effort to discover the location of artifacts and those attempting to uncover the mystery.
What follows is a frantic race that travels from Paris to London in an effort to get to the bottom of the mystery and unravel the true nature of the mystery and the secret that people are willing to kill for in order to protect.
While some may find the mystery, the players, and their motivations confusing, the film does grab hold and moves along at a solid pace. Ron Howard once again shows his skill by directing a film that is different from his other works, yet rich in its visuals and complexity. The scenic locales of the film enhance the mystery (For those who have not read the book), as they attempt to decipher the clues along with the characters.
The work from the cast was solid as Hanks gives a very good if restrained performance in his portrayal. Mc Kellen is a very nice blend of elegance and old world charm that lifts up every scene in which he is in.
While there are those who will lambaste the film for the message it provides, I chose to look at it as a film that does what movies should, entertain and make you think. The film is not saying its assertions are hard and cold facts, what it is doing is providing a vehicle for debate.
In college I was told that through debate comes knowledge and growth for a society. This was common in ancient Greek and Roman society where issues of the day would be debated in open forums. It seems that we as a society have become too insistent to take things at face value and have forgotten that the very nature of the human experience is to question, grow, and seek our own answers. As such the film is a great example of how Hollywood at times gets it right and provides solid entertainment that will stimulate as well as entertain.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Operation Avalanche (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
You’ve heard me say it before. I’ll say it again. Before this year is out, I’ll say it in perhaps another article. The ‘found footage genre’ of movies was played out in perhaps its most notable appearance as well as its debut in the original ‘Blair Witch Project’. Now they’re gearing-up for another round of ‘beating a dead horse’ with a remake would you believe? However, I’m not here writing this article to go on and on and plague your eyes with an entire article complaining about the issue. No. Why you ask? For the unique reason which is since I’ve been writing reviews for movies, ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ has given me the good fortune to screen movies incorporating said genre that present ORIGINAL ideas. Today’s film for your consideration does so in the form of a unique period piece incorporating one of the most notorious conspiracy theories in the world with a pivotal moment in history. Not just in American history but global history.
July 20th, 1969. Less than 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis in the midst of the Cold War the great ‘space race’ between the two world superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, is on. NASA astronauts Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neil Armstrong journey to the moon aboard the Apollo 11 spacecraft where Neil Armstrong becomes the first human being in history to set foot on the moon. That’s what the history books say. However, almost immediately after the crew of Apollo 11 returned to Earth there were many individuals on both sides who claimed not only was it not possible to land human beings safely on the moon and return them to Earth, but that NASA had faked the entire event in conjunction with other organizations and agencies within the American intelligence and military communities. This is where the basis for today’s film originates.
‘Operation Avalanche’ is an American-Canadian found footage/conspiracy thriller film directed by Matt Johnson who also starred in and co-wrote the film with Josh Boles. The film also stars Owen Williams, Jared Raab, Andrew Appelle, Madeleine Sims-Fewer, Krista Madison, Tom Bolton, and Sharon Belle. The film begins in 1967. The Central Intelligence Agency suspects that a Soviet mole has infiltrated NASA and is providing the Russians with information on American rocket technology. Four employees of the CIA are sent in undercover as a documentary film crew to determine if the agency’s suspicions are true and to determine the mole’s identity. Instead, what the discover sends shockwaves through the agency’s upper echelons and could potentially lead to a Soviet victory in the space race and bring to light one of the biggest conspiracies imaginable.
This movie is a brilliantly conceived and executed piece of film making. It not only includes historical news footage from the event, but combines it with a bit of guerrilla film-making. The film was shot in Toronto, Washington DC, and Houston, Texas. They were able to shoot on site at NASA by claiming they were shooting a documentary which was not entirely untrue. Essential they sort of broke the ‘fourth wall’ three times. The characters in the film were documentary film makers going undercover to shoot a documentary under the guise of a documentary film crew. The attention to detail from the locations, to the music, to the people themselves (how they looked, talked, and dressed) was something that one would imagine would’ve taken a larger budget. These folks pulled it off brilliantly essentially creating a period piece within the film. You get a genuine sense that the characters are who they act like they are in the particular time and place. Four CIA operatives looking to move up in the agency by moving themselves into place to be assigned to an undercover operation with low risk to themselves with the slight possibility of danger but then get caught up in a secret far bigger than anything they originally anticipated. The senses are heightened, the pace increases, and the conspiracy begins to unfold. The film is most definitely worth checking out. It kinda slows down a bit too much at certain points but all in all an excellent film. I’m going to give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars. It’s certainly what I’d like to call a ‘thinking persons movie’. If you’re a fan of history, conspiracy theory, or both this film is certainly worth watching.
July 20th, 1969. Less than 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis in the midst of the Cold War the great ‘space race’ between the two world superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, is on. NASA astronauts Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neil Armstrong journey to the moon aboard the Apollo 11 spacecraft where Neil Armstrong becomes the first human being in history to set foot on the moon. That’s what the history books say. However, almost immediately after the crew of Apollo 11 returned to Earth there were many individuals on both sides who claimed not only was it not possible to land human beings safely on the moon and return them to Earth, but that NASA had faked the entire event in conjunction with other organizations and agencies within the American intelligence and military communities. This is where the basis for today’s film originates.
‘Operation Avalanche’ is an American-Canadian found footage/conspiracy thriller film directed by Matt Johnson who also starred in and co-wrote the film with Josh Boles. The film also stars Owen Williams, Jared Raab, Andrew Appelle, Madeleine Sims-Fewer, Krista Madison, Tom Bolton, and Sharon Belle. The film begins in 1967. The Central Intelligence Agency suspects that a Soviet mole has infiltrated NASA and is providing the Russians with information on American rocket technology. Four employees of the CIA are sent in undercover as a documentary film crew to determine if the agency’s suspicions are true and to determine the mole’s identity. Instead, what the discover sends shockwaves through the agency’s upper echelons and could potentially lead to a Soviet victory in the space race and bring to light one of the biggest conspiracies imaginable.
This movie is a brilliantly conceived and executed piece of film making. It not only includes historical news footage from the event, but combines it with a bit of guerrilla film-making. The film was shot in Toronto, Washington DC, and Houston, Texas. They were able to shoot on site at NASA by claiming they were shooting a documentary which was not entirely untrue. Essential they sort of broke the ‘fourth wall’ three times. The characters in the film were documentary film makers going undercover to shoot a documentary under the guise of a documentary film crew. The attention to detail from the locations, to the music, to the people themselves (how they looked, talked, and dressed) was something that one would imagine would’ve taken a larger budget. These folks pulled it off brilliantly essentially creating a period piece within the film. You get a genuine sense that the characters are who they act like they are in the particular time and place. Four CIA operatives looking to move up in the agency by moving themselves into place to be assigned to an undercover operation with low risk to themselves with the slight possibility of danger but then get caught up in a secret far bigger than anything they originally anticipated. The senses are heightened, the pace increases, and the conspiracy begins to unfold. The film is most definitely worth checking out. It kinda slows down a bit too much at certain points but all in all an excellent film. I’m going to give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars. It’s certainly what I’d like to call a ‘thinking persons movie’. If you’re a fan of history, conspiracy theory, or both this film is certainly worth watching.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
How many of these reviews are going to start with “Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?” A lot I am willing to bet. The thing is, it’s a good way to start. Bohemian Rhapsody has been a highly anticipated film for many years. I remember back when they were considering Johnny Depp for Freddie Mercury. Then it was Sasha Baren Cohen. And then they announced Rami Malek, and a majority of the country went, “Who?” Rami Malek is mostly known for his work as the lead in the USA Network series Mr. Robot. He got his start in the Night at the Museum series, and has scene big screen time in Need for Speed and, most recently, Papillion alongside Charlie Hunnam. I think it’s safe to say that after November 2, 2018, people will definitely know who he is.
Named for Queen’s most successful song in their portfolio, Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of Freddie Mercury and how he rose from being a baggage boy at Heathrow, to a literal rock legend. We see how the band Queen was formed, how they got their name, how they made it big, and what made Queen… well Queen. Rami Malek delivers a powerful performance as the front man of the legendary band. For me, it started off a little shaky at first (coming from someone who is fan of Malek), but he quickly made the role his own and personified the late Mercury like no other can. Even Mercury’s own sister saw Malek in full costume and said, “There’s my Freddie.”
Not to downplay the rest of the cast. Rounding at the rest of the band is Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon, Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All delivered powerful performances in their own right, and the chemistry between the 4 actors is undeniable. Veterans Aidan Gillen (as John Reid) and Tom Hollander (Jim Beach) deliver in their supporting roles, as does Lucy Boynton, who played Mary Austin. If some of these names do not seem familiar, get ready to learn a lot of the background of Queen in their rise, fall, and then rise again. Also, Mike Myers makes an appearance for a fun cameo as Ray Foster.
Clearly a majority of the film’s score revolves around the band’s expansive portfolio. But it wasn’t just the in your face, obvious music that was there. They did a great job with subtle melodies or bars from the band’s repertoire hanging in the background of impactful scenes throughout the film. Sometimes you’ll miss it, sometimes it’s obvious, and sometimes it might just make you cry.
The story begins with Mercury meeting Taylor and May, and ends with the ever-famous Live-Aid in 1985. While the film is essentially a love-story dedicated to Mercury, I feel it may have left out the rest of the members of the band. We see May, Taylor and Deacon, but we know little about their outside lives other than fleeting statements about their wives and kids, and what they were studying in university prior to Queen taking off. It’s a shame because Queen was not just about Mercury. The film did a really good job stating this, showing how they all contribute, all support each other, and how they are all different. But the focus is still on one man. Queen, the rock band, is an entity. Not an individual. But, I understand the decision behind the path that was chosen. Mercury, to many, was the embodiment of Queen. I am just glad the movie did put out there that he didn’t feel that way.
All of that aside, this film was fantastic. I have been a fan of Queen since I was in diapers, despite a majority of the band’s career having taken place before I was born. It was good to see this story told on screen, though slightly dramatized at points. It was an excellent telling of the story, and people may learn a lot about Freddie Mercury, like his love of cats, and who the love of his life is. Unless you’re absolutely cold-hearted, expect to get goosebumps as you progress through the band’s rise to the top, and to laugh as you how they interacted and developed their music. The movie is not without flaws, but they are so minor that looking past them is easy. Enjoy the film. Enjoy the music. Rock on.
Named for Queen’s most successful song in their portfolio, Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of Freddie Mercury and how he rose from being a baggage boy at Heathrow, to a literal rock legend. We see how the band Queen was formed, how they got their name, how they made it big, and what made Queen… well Queen. Rami Malek delivers a powerful performance as the front man of the legendary band. For me, it started off a little shaky at first (coming from someone who is fan of Malek), but he quickly made the role his own and personified the late Mercury like no other can. Even Mercury’s own sister saw Malek in full costume and said, “There’s my Freddie.”
Not to downplay the rest of the cast. Rounding at the rest of the band is Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon, Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All delivered powerful performances in their own right, and the chemistry between the 4 actors is undeniable. Veterans Aidan Gillen (as John Reid) and Tom Hollander (Jim Beach) deliver in their supporting roles, as does Lucy Boynton, who played Mary Austin. If some of these names do not seem familiar, get ready to learn a lot of the background of Queen in their rise, fall, and then rise again. Also, Mike Myers makes an appearance for a fun cameo as Ray Foster.
Clearly a majority of the film’s score revolves around the band’s expansive portfolio. But it wasn’t just the in your face, obvious music that was there. They did a great job with subtle melodies or bars from the band’s repertoire hanging in the background of impactful scenes throughout the film. Sometimes you’ll miss it, sometimes it’s obvious, and sometimes it might just make you cry.
The story begins with Mercury meeting Taylor and May, and ends with the ever-famous Live-Aid in 1985. While the film is essentially a love-story dedicated to Mercury, I feel it may have left out the rest of the members of the band. We see May, Taylor and Deacon, but we know little about their outside lives other than fleeting statements about their wives and kids, and what they were studying in university prior to Queen taking off. It’s a shame because Queen was not just about Mercury. The film did a really good job stating this, showing how they all contribute, all support each other, and how they are all different. But the focus is still on one man. Queen, the rock band, is an entity. Not an individual. But, I understand the decision behind the path that was chosen. Mercury, to many, was the embodiment of Queen. I am just glad the movie did put out there that he didn’t feel that way.
All of that aside, this film was fantastic. I have been a fan of Queen since I was in diapers, despite a majority of the band’s career having taken place before I was born. It was good to see this story told on screen, though slightly dramatized at points. It was an excellent telling of the story, and people may learn a lot about Freddie Mercury, like his love of cats, and who the love of his life is. Unless you’re absolutely cold-hearted, expect to get goosebumps as you progress through the band’s rise to the top, and to laugh as you how they interacted and developed their music. The movie is not without flaws, but they are so minor that looking past them is easy. Enjoy the film. Enjoy the music. Rock on.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Aeronauts (2019) in Movies
Mar 19, 2020
As my cinema bookings started to be cancelled, and upcoming releases delayed as part of the chaos that's currently unfolding globally, I thought it was time to start tackling some of those streaming site watch-lists that have been slowly growing in size over recent years. First up, a movie that I managed to miss late last year when released in cinemas, and is now available to stream on Amazon Prime.
The Aeronauts is set in the 1860s and sees Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, last seen together playing husband and wife in The Theory of Everything, reuniting for a story that is inspired by true events. Redmayne plays James Glaisher, a scientist studying and presenting theories surrounding weather prediction, in particular how a trip to the skies in a gas balloon could help us to understand more about it. It's a science very much in it's infancy, which is why Glaisher has become such a laughing stock among his peers within the science community, all of whom declare meteorology to be fortune telling rather than science. Felicity Jones plays the fictional character of Amelia Wren, an aeronaut who lost her husband in a balloon accident and has been convinced by Glaisher to return to the skies and join him as pilot onboard the balloon as they explore some of his theories.
The movie begins with a large crowd who have gathered in London to watch the departure of the Glaisher and Wren. Glaisher is making some last minute checks and adjustments to the numerous pieces of equipment that will provide all of the data and readings he needs while they ascend up into the clouds, while Wren is currently nowhere to be seen. When she does eventually arrive, she's brash and loud, making a big entrance and playing up to the crowds, entertaining them with cartwheels and her parachuting dog. “Do you take anything seriously?" Glaisher asks.
As the balloon gently sets off, we get a beautiful view of 1860s London and a simple on-screen graph begins plotting the duration of their journey against their current height, something which returns every so often to keep us nicely updated with their progress. Before this expedition, the greatest altitude ever reached by a human being was 23,000ft, a record achieved by a French team. So, in addition to gaining some valuable scientific data along the way, there is the added incentive to try and beat the French too!
The whole expedition is followed pretty much in real time, but broken up by a series of flashbacks which give us some additional insight into our main characters and what brought them together. A look at the balloon trip which resulted in the death of her husband shows us just how seriously Amelia takes her role on this particular adventure. Meanwhile, we get more of a glimpse into the ridicule Glaisher received from his scientific colleagues, and an introduction to his dementia suffering father (Tom Courtenay).
As beautiful and exhilarating as it is to see the balloon as it continues up through the clouds and storms, floating peacefully through blue skies and swarms of butterflies, it wouldn't be much of a movie without some additional drama and tension to spice things up. So, as Glaisher and Wren argue about whether to push on way beyond the 23,000ft record or begin their descent, the temperature drops down to five degrees, and snow and ice begin to form on the balloon and basket. The thinning oxygen and cold temperatures starts to affect their judgement, their equipment and their health, and would you believe it, neither of them thought to bring along their gloves either!
When the pigeons they've brought along for sending instrument readings back down to base either start to die, or drop like rocks when launched from the balloon basket, it's clear that it's time to start heading back down. But, a problem with the balloon means that Wren must venture outside the basket and up on top of the balloon itself, in some of the most vertigo inducing scenes I've seen since watching The Walk on the big screen.
The Aeronauts was a lot more enjoyable than I was expecting. It's two stars, as you'd expect, more than capably carry the story and are both hugely entertaining. The effects used for rendering the balloon and it's surroundings, particularly during adverse weather conditions, are very effective and at times had me on the edge of my seat too.
The Aeronauts is set in the 1860s and sees Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, last seen together playing husband and wife in The Theory of Everything, reuniting for a story that is inspired by true events. Redmayne plays James Glaisher, a scientist studying and presenting theories surrounding weather prediction, in particular how a trip to the skies in a gas balloon could help us to understand more about it. It's a science very much in it's infancy, which is why Glaisher has become such a laughing stock among his peers within the science community, all of whom declare meteorology to be fortune telling rather than science. Felicity Jones plays the fictional character of Amelia Wren, an aeronaut who lost her husband in a balloon accident and has been convinced by Glaisher to return to the skies and join him as pilot onboard the balloon as they explore some of his theories.
The movie begins with a large crowd who have gathered in London to watch the departure of the Glaisher and Wren. Glaisher is making some last minute checks and adjustments to the numerous pieces of equipment that will provide all of the data and readings he needs while they ascend up into the clouds, while Wren is currently nowhere to be seen. When she does eventually arrive, she's brash and loud, making a big entrance and playing up to the crowds, entertaining them with cartwheels and her parachuting dog. “Do you take anything seriously?" Glaisher asks.
As the balloon gently sets off, we get a beautiful view of 1860s London and a simple on-screen graph begins plotting the duration of their journey against their current height, something which returns every so often to keep us nicely updated with their progress. Before this expedition, the greatest altitude ever reached by a human being was 23,000ft, a record achieved by a French team. So, in addition to gaining some valuable scientific data along the way, there is the added incentive to try and beat the French too!
The whole expedition is followed pretty much in real time, but broken up by a series of flashbacks which give us some additional insight into our main characters and what brought them together. A look at the balloon trip which resulted in the death of her husband shows us just how seriously Amelia takes her role on this particular adventure. Meanwhile, we get more of a glimpse into the ridicule Glaisher received from his scientific colleagues, and an introduction to his dementia suffering father (Tom Courtenay).
As beautiful and exhilarating as it is to see the balloon as it continues up through the clouds and storms, floating peacefully through blue skies and swarms of butterflies, it wouldn't be much of a movie without some additional drama and tension to spice things up. So, as Glaisher and Wren argue about whether to push on way beyond the 23,000ft record or begin their descent, the temperature drops down to five degrees, and snow and ice begin to form on the balloon and basket. The thinning oxygen and cold temperatures starts to affect their judgement, their equipment and their health, and would you believe it, neither of them thought to bring along their gloves either!
When the pigeons they've brought along for sending instrument readings back down to base either start to die, or drop like rocks when launched from the balloon basket, it's clear that it's time to start heading back down. But, a problem with the balloon means that Wren must venture outside the basket and up on top of the balloon itself, in some of the most vertigo inducing scenes I've seen since watching The Walk on the big screen.
The Aeronauts was a lot more enjoyable than I was expecting. It's two stars, as you'd expect, more than capably carry the story and are both hugely entertaining. The effects used for rendering the balloon and it's surroundings, particularly during adverse weather conditions, are very effective and at times had me on the edge of my seat too.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Detective Comics Volume 3: League of Shadows in Books
Nov 30, 2020
<i>A little bit of "backstory": I am a sucker for well-executed Ra's al Ghul story! To me, he is one of Batman's best adversaries and one of my personal faves! Add in more human, less off-the-scale like he is under Tom King's run Batman, and you've got a great treat for me! Now, that said, on to my review.</i>
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/MW33UBM.gif"; width="300" height="200">
I am still enjoying my return to reading DC's books rather than the current slop Marvel is serving up. My latest undertaking has been James Tynion IV's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Last night, I devoured the 3rd volume, "League of Shadows", largely for the reasons in my backstory above.
I know some folks on interwebs have issues with Tynion's writing for the Dark Knight. I've read things like "bland" and "his stories go NOWHERE". I don't know which of his Batman entries they are reading, but thus far, not a one has disappointed.
This one was particularly interesting as it dealt with Cassandra Cain, a former Batgirl/now calling herself "Orphan" as that is what her parents have chosen to do, leaving her <i>orphaned</i>. Her mother is Sandra Wu-San, or as she is better known, Lady Shiva. There is no love lost between Cassandra and her mother; essentially, Shiva treats the poor girl as if she was dead, not even a product of her womb. Sad, really. But, it is good to see Cassandra and Shiva's relationship dealt with following the whole "Rebirth".
I may be in a serious minority here, but I really liked the ending (not <i>really</i> much of Spoiler), where Batman holds her in a embrace, letting her known she is not alone..ever. Sure, Bats is all about the whole "Dark Knight" and "Oooh, feel my scary presence, criminals!", but it was nice to see his human, father-esque side to his character. Much better than the way he is being handled in his main book!
Equally meaty and worthwhile was Ra's inclusion as part of the story. I found him to be well-written, feeling much like "The Demon's Head" that is his being. I was totally able to hear, in my head, his dialogue as read by David Warner, who did his voice in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. That definitely seems like Tynion is truly writing at the top of his game!
I was also quite pleased with the subplot of more background to Batwoman's character. I was not really that familiar with her character, other than in the animated DC film. That aside, I found her to be real and decidedly interesting, especially her relationship with her father. Again, some excellent writing from Tynion!
And speaking of Batwoman, how cool was it to see Batman assembling Bat-Family 2.0? This plot element harkened back to the Silver Age, where DETECTIVE COMICS would often do double-sized issues that focused on the then-Bat-Fam: Batman, Robin (Dick Grayson, not yet Nightwing), Batgirl, and sometimes, Elongated Man would get a story in it as well.
The new Bat-Fam consists of Batman (of course!), Batwing (Lucius Fox's son), Batwoman, Orphan (Cassandra Cain), Azrael (who I consider to be not-so-interest, leaving me to skip the last issue of this volume as it was 100% Azrael-centric), Spoiler (Stephanie Brown), Red Robin, and the-now-trying-his-hand-at-being-a-rehabilitated-good-guy Clayface. Quite a mixed bag, almost like a Skittles version of the Bat-Fam, but interesting choices for a collaborative team.
The team functions well enough, but there is some static and tension, as would be true of any team assembled such as this lot. All in all, I really dug the gang, and they really worked well together. Super-smooth idea of introducing a Bat-Fam 2.0! Bravo, James Tynion IV,you are AWESOME for doing this!
It is also worth mentioning the artists for this volume: Marcio Takara and Christian Duce. I was already familiar with Takara's delicious style from his work on Marvel's ALL-NEW WOLVERINE. Christian Duce was previously unknown to me, but after seeing his super-legit art skills, he is going to be one for me to keep an eye for going forward!
Blah, blah, blah, am I right? I could go on and on, but if you weren't reading my blathering, you could be reading this excellent Bat-book. I was going to give it 5-Stars, but I see that I was just giving them out for a while not unlike Oprah giving away new cars! So, that's it! Go already! You need to get a'readin'!
<img src="https://i.imgur.com/MW33UBM.gif"; width="300" height="200">
I am still enjoying my return to reading DC's books rather than the current slop Marvel is serving up. My latest undertaking has been James Tynion IV's run on DETECTIVE COMICS. Last night, I devoured the 3rd volume, "League of Shadows", largely for the reasons in my backstory above.
I know some folks on interwebs have issues with Tynion's writing for the Dark Knight. I've read things like "bland" and "his stories go NOWHERE". I don't know which of his Batman entries they are reading, but thus far, not a one has disappointed.
This one was particularly interesting as it dealt with Cassandra Cain, a former Batgirl/now calling herself "Orphan" as that is what her parents have chosen to do, leaving her <i>orphaned</i>. Her mother is Sandra Wu-San, or as she is better known, Lady Shiva. There is no love lost between Cassandra and her mother; essentially, Shiva treats the poor girl as if she was dead, not even a product of her womb. Sad, really. But, it is good to see Cassandra and Shiva's relationship dealt with following the whole "Rebirth".
I may be in a serious minority here, but I really liked the ending (not <i>really</i> much of Spoiler), where Batman holds her in a embrace, letting her known she is not alone..ever. Sure, Bats is all about the whole "Dark Knight" and "Oooh, feel my scary presence, criminals!", but it was nice to see his human, father-esque side to his character. Much better than the way he is being handled in his main book!
Equally meaty and worthwhile was Ra's inclusion as part of the story. I found him to be well-written, feeling much like "The Demon's Head" that is his being. I was totally able to hear, in my head, his dialogue as read by David Warner, who did his voice in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. That definitely seems like Tynion is truly writing at the top of his game!
I was also quite pleased with the subplot of more background to Batwoman's character. I was not really that familiar with her character, other than in the animated DC film. That aside, I found her to be real and decidedly interesting, especially her relationship with her father. Again, some excellent writing from Tynion!
And speaking of Batwoman, how cool was it to see Batman assembling Bat-Family 2.0? This plot element harkened back to the Silver Age, where DETECTIVE COMICS would often do double-sized issues that focused on the then-Bat-Fam: Batman, Robin (Dick Grayson, not yet Nightwing), Batgirl, and sometimes, Elongated Man would get a story in it as well.
The new Bat-Fam consists of Batman (of course!), Batwing (Lucius Fox's son), Batwoman, Orphan (Cassandra Cain), Azrael (who I consider to be not-so-interest, leaving me to skip the last issue of this volume as it was 100% Azrael-centric), Spoiler (Stephanie Brown), Red Robin, and the-now-trying-his-hand-at-being-a-rehabilitated-good-guy Clayface. Quite a mixed bag, almost like a Skittles version of the Bat-Fam, but interesting choices for a collaborative team.
The team functions well enough, but there is some static and tension, as would be true of any team assembled such as this lot. All in all, I really dug the gang, and they really worked well together. Super-smooth idea of introducing a Bat-Fam 2.0! Bravo, James Tynion IV,you are AWESOME for doing this!
It is also worth mentioning the artists for this volume: Marcio Takara and Christian Duce. I was already familiar with Takara's delicious style from his work on Marvel's ALL-NEW WOLVERINE. Christian Duce was previously unknown to me, but after seeing his super-legit art skills, he is going to be one for me to keep an eye for going forward!
Blah, blah, blah, am I right? I could go on and on, but if you weren't reading my blathering, you could be reading this excellent Bat-book. I was going to give it 5-Stars, but I see that I was just giving them out for a while not unlike Oprah giving away new cars! So, that's it! Go already! You need to get a'readin'!