Search
Talented Pet Hollywood Story
Games and Education
App
Take your seat, pull down the screen, turn the lights off, the movie is about to start! Love movie...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Kimi (2022) in Movies
Feb 22, 2022
Better-Than-Average, but nothing more
Oscar winning Director Steven Soderbergh (TRAFFIC) could rightfully be called the current “Master of Suspense” as most of his films fall into the “Psychological Drama” category - and his latest HBO MAX film, KIMI, is a perfectly ordinary entry in his catalogue.
Starring Zoe Kravitz (BIG LITTLE LIES) in the titular role, KIMI follows an agoraphobic tech worker, in the middle of global pandemic, who thinks she might have stumbled upon a crime.
Written by veteran Screenwriter David Koepp (the OG SPIDERMAN, starring Tobey Maguire), KIMI is a better-than-average thriller with a better-than-average lead performance by Kravitz and Directed in better-than-average style by Soderbergh.
Which makes this film entertaining, somewhat interesting but nothing special.
The plot twists and turns enough that keeps you guessing, but never falls into over-the-top “you got to be kidding me” territory or something of true suspense while the performance of Kravitz is good (enough) to hold your attention without falling prey to gimmickry/tricks/twitches. It is a solid “B” performance but not better (or worse).
A highlight for me was the appearance of Robin Givens (the former Mrs. Mike Tyson) as Kravitz’/Kimi’s mother. It was good to see her get some work. On the other hand, this is counter-balanced by the horrible performance of Rita Wilson (the current Mrs. Tom Hanks) as a shady Corporate-type who does everything by twirl her mustache in her single appearance on screen.
Add on top of this some fairly pedestrian Direction by Soderbergh and you have a serviceable, passable, “good enough” film that is, mercifully, only an hour and a 1/2 long. It is one of those rare films that I wondered when it ended that if they added another 1/2 hour to this film - and added some depth to the characters (especially the villians) perhaps this would have been a better film.
But, instead, we get a pleasant (enough) diversion.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starring Zoe Kravitz (BIG LITTLE LIES) in the titular role, KIMI follows an agoraphobic tech worker, in the middle of global pandemic, who thinks she might have stumbled upon a crime.
Written by veteran Screenwriter David Koepp (the OG SPIDERMAN, starring Tobey Maguire), KIMI is a better-than-average thriller with a better-than-average lead performance by Kravitz and Directed in better-than-average style by Soderbergh.
Which makes this film entertaining, somewhat interesting but nothing special.
The plot twists and turns enough that keeps you guessing, but never falls into over-the-top “you got to be kidding me” territory or something of true suspense while the performance of Kravitz is good (enough) to hold your attention without falling prey to gimmickry/tricks/twitches. It is a solid “B” performance but not better (or worse).
A highlight for me was the appearance of Robin Givens (the former Mrs. Mike Tyson) as Kravitz’/Kimi’s mother. It was good to see her get some work. On the other hand, this is counter-balanced by the horrible performance of Rita Wilson (the current Mrs. Tom Hanks) as a shady Corporate-type who does everything by twirl her mustache in her single appearance on screen.
Add on top of this some fairly pedestrian Direction by Soderbergh and you have a serviceable, passable, “good enough” film that is, mercifully, only an hour and a 1/2 long. It is one of those rare films that I wondered when it ended that if they added another 1/2 hour to this film - and added some depth to the characters (especially the villians) perhaps this would have been a better film.
But, instead, we get a pleasant (enough) diversion.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Sully (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
“The Miracle on the Hudson” is a story that many are acquainted with and many have forgotten in the seven years since the incredibly miraculous landing of US Airways flight 1549 on January 15, 2009. In Sully, Clint Eastwood brings the attention and focus back to this historic event in order to tell audiences about more than just a forced landing into the Hudson River.
Tom Hanks stars as Chester “Sully” Sullenberger reminding viewers how he can so easily represent a character on screen whether they are fictional or based off of real people. His portrayal of “Sully” demonstrates the varying issues surrounding the events the day of the landing and those that followed. When the events played themselves out in the public, it appeared very “cut and dry.” The film reveals the depth at which the pilots dealt with the stress of the publicity, the investigation, scrutiny, and the reality of facing one’s own mortality.
The story, although generally familiar, is engrossing in its presentation by Eastwood. The story is built in layers to where you get to feel the pain and fear that Sully experiences with this near death experience. We witness how he tries to cope with this situation and struggles with the realization that he accomplished the near impossible. The scenes are not over sensationalized. They are not trite. They allow for a true representation of what took place and all of the people affected by it. The film is an imaginative and thought provoking account of real events. Sully demonstrates to audiences the depth inherent with events, circumstances, and individuals.
“The Miracle on the Hudson” had reporters, investigators, and the general public consumed with numbers; 155 people on board, 208 seconds of total flight, altitude of 2818 ft, 2 engines lost to bird strike, a water temperature of 36 degrees, air temperature of 20 with a wind chill of -5, and 1 pilot who made the right decision that day. It is not the numbers that the film is concerned with, it is the people. Eastwood allows for their stories to be on display and demonstrate the reality that they all faced during the incident and the days that followed. The film is outstanding in displaying the humanity and chaos of the event.
Tom Hanks stars as Chester “Sully” Sullenberger reminding viewers how he can so easily represent a character on screen whether they are fictional or based off of real people. His portrayal of “Sully” demonstrates the varying issues surrounding the events the day of the landing and those that followed. When the events played themselves out in the public, it appeared very “cut and dry.” The film reveals the depth at which the pilots dealt with the stress of the publicity, the investigation, scrutiny, and the reality of facing one’s own mortality.
The story, although generally familiar, is engrossing in its presentation by Eastwood. The story is built in layers to where you get to feel the pain and fear that Sully experiences with this near death experience. We witness how he tries to cope with this situation and struggles with the realization that he accomplished the near impossible. The scenes are not over sensationalized. They are not trite. They allow for a true representation of what took place and all of the people affected by it. The film is an imaginative and thought provoking account of real events. Sully demonstrates to audiences the depth inherent with events, circumstances, and individuals.
“The Miracle on the Hudson” had reporters, investigators, and the general public consumed with numbers; 155 people on board, 208 seconds of total flight, altitude of 2818 ft, 2 engines lost to bird strike, a water temperature of 36 degrees, air temperature of 20 with a wind chill of -5, and 1 pilot who made the right decision that day. It is not the numbers that the film is concerned with, it is the people. Eastwood allows for their stories to be on display and demonstrate the reality that they all faced during the incident and the days that followed. The film is outstanding in displaying the humanity and chaos of the event.
ClareR (5561 KP) rated The Switch in Books
Jul 18, 2020
The Switch by Beth O’Leary was a book that I was very much looking forward to reading. I had read, loved and gifted The Flatshare, her debut book. Then I read the synopsis for this book, and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a little trepidatious (is that a real word?). I had visions of Tom Hanks in Big, or of Jodie Foster in Freaky Friday, if I’m honest. I needn’t have worried, because this isn’t Big or Freaky Friday (sorry, if that’s what you’re expecting 🤷🏼♀️).
Instead, this is the story of two Eileens: 79 year old Eileen and her granddaughter Leena who is 29. They are both at times of great change in their lives. They’ve both just experienced the death of Leena’s sister, and Eileen’s husband has left her for a younger woman.
When Leena comes home for a visit, she realises that Eileen has been casing the men in the village with a mind to dating one. There isn’t a great choice. After a look on a dating website, she realises that the choice of men in their 70’s is far greater in London, so Leena creates an account on the dating website for her Grandma, and they swap lives for 8 weeks - the length of time that Leena’s boss has given her as a holiday, to try and recover from the loss of her sister.
I adored this book. Need I say more? OK, I suppose I should.
I loved how Eileen was treated as an adult with real feelings and sexual urges. She may be 79, but she isn’t some sexless old biddy, treated like a child. As much as we don’t necessarily like to think of our mothers/ grandmothers having sex , it’s highly likely that they do, and why not?
I loved how the death of Leena’s sister was treated. The long, slow process of grieving, and how it doesn’t just switch off, that there are no rules.
Leena’s love life is very entertaining too, and I was rooting for one particular character throughout.
So in conclusion, just do yourself a favour and go and buy this book. It’s ace. Beth O’Leary writes wonderful stories it would seem, about wonderful, quirky, normal people. I’ll be waiting and ready to read whatever she puts out there next, of that I’m sure!
Instead, this is the story of two Eileens: 79 year old Eileen and her granddaughter Leena who is 29. They are both at times of great change in their lives. They’ve both just experienced the death of Leena’s sister, and Eileen’s husband has left her for a younger woman.
When Leena comes home for a visit, she realises that Eileen has been casing the men in the village with a mind to dating one. There isn’t a great choice. After a look on a dating website, she realises that the choice of men in their 70’s is far greater in London, so Leena creates an account on the dating website for her Grandma, and they swap lives for 8 weeks - the length of time that Leena’s boss has given her as a holiday, to try and recover from the loss of her sister.
I adored this book. Need I say more? OK, I suppose I should.
I loved how Eileen was treated as an adult with real feelings and sexual urges. She may be 79, but she isn’t some sexless old biddy, treated like a child. As much as we don’t necessarily like to think of our mothers/ grandmothers having sex , it’s highly likely that they do, and why not?
I loved how the death of Leena’s sister was treated. The long, slow process of grieving, and how it doesn’t just switch off, that there are no rules.
Leena’s love life is very entertaining too, and I was rooting for one particular character throughout.
So in conclusion, just do yourself a favour and go and buy this book. It’s ace. Beth O’Leary writes wonderful stories it would seem, about wonderful, quirky, normal people. I’ll be waiting and ready to read whatever she puts out there next, of that I’m sure!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019
A Touching And Winning Triumph
Toy Story 4 was a heartwarming story filled with exciting plot twists, lots of laughs, and even a few heart wrenching moments. The movie is easy to follow while still being very exciting. Made by Disney Pixar they uphold their hold on wholesome, funny, and exciting entertainment. I’ll admit I was a bit skeptical at first as this was the fourth movie in the saga and I was convinced that there wasn’t much for the writers to go off on since the 3rd movie comes to such a happy conclusion. I am happy to say that I was pleasantly surprised! I walked into the theatre feeling a little unsure, to being moved to tears by the conclusion of the film, and then leaving the theatre feeling like a small part of my childhood was complete since I was raised on this Disney/Disney-Pixar movies!
The original cast is back at it again with Tom Hanks voicing Woody and Tim Allen as Buzz Lightyear. This of course only added to the charm of the movie as I can’t imagine anyone better. It was also awesome to have the Voice actors from Toy Story 3 back and In the movie. I was also very pleased to have Bo Peep back in the saga! One of the best things about the film is the new lovable characters. One of my absolute favorites was Forky voiced by Tony Hale. Forky is a toy that was made by bonnie while she was feeling lonely at kindergarten orientation, Forky is made out of craft supplies (pipe cleaners, googly eyes, etc.) and a spork.
Forky doesn’t want to be Bonnie’s toy at first and is constantly trying to go be in the trash because that is where he feels like he belongs. Woody dedicates himself to keeping forky available to Bonnie because she has become attached to him. Finally, Woody is able to help forky to see why his role in Bonnie’s life is important.
There are plenty of other lovable characters and a wonderful plot. It was a charming movie that I would recommend to all ages! I was very pleased with the movie and would happily go see it again in a heartbeat! I would proudly give the movie 5 stars, It was brilliantly done.
http://sknr.net/2019/06/14/toy-story-4/
The original cast is back at it again with Tom Hanks voicing Woody and Tim Allen as Buzz Lightyear. This of course only added to the charm of the movie as I can’t imagine anyone better. It was also awesome to have the Voice actors from Toy Story 3 back and In the movie. I was also very pleased to have Bo Peep back in the saga! One of the best things about the film is the new lovable characters. One of my absolute favorites was Forky voiced by Tony Hale. Forky is a toy that was made by bonnie while she was feeling lonely at kindergarten orientation, Forky is made out of craft supplies (pipe cleaners, googly eyes, etc.) and a spork.
Forky doesn’t want to be Bonnie’s toy at first and is constantly trying to go be in the trash because that is where he feels like he belongs. Woody dedicates himself to keeping forky available to Bonnie because she has become attached to him. Finally, Woody is able to help forky to see why his role in Bonnie’s life is important.
There are plenty of other lovable characters and a wonderful plot. It was a charming movie that I would recommend to all ages! I was very pleased with the movie and would happily go see it again in a heartbeat! I would proudly give the movie 5 stars, It was brilliantly done.
http://sknr.net/2019/06/14/toy-story-4/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019 (Updated Feb 25, 2019)
Groundbreaker mired in slop
Contains spoilers, click to show
Regarded as one of the best war films ever made, it certainly qualifies. The opening twenty minutes are still as breathtaking, shocking and disturbing realistic as they were back in 1998. It is hard to imagine that it has now been over twelve years since Saving Private Ryan broke the mold of World War II film making.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 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 (965 KP) rated Saving Mr. Banks (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
One of the greatest Disney classics, “Mary Poppins” has a unique history on its long journey from the page to the silver screen. In “Saving Mr. Banks”, the twenty year battle between Walt Disney and the notoriously difficult author is told in a touching and gripping tale.
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All of Me (1984) in Movies
Jul 28, 2020
Wonderful physical comedy performance by Martin
Over the history of cinema, there are certain Director/Lead Actor pairings that are perfect for each other. John Ford/John Wayne, Alfred Hitchcock/Jimmy Stewart, Martin Scorcese/Robert DeNiro, Steven Spielberg/Tom Hanks all come to mind. Add to that the inspired comedic pairing of Director Carl Reiner and the great Steve Martin.
Starting with THE JERK (1979), Martin and Reiner would make 4 films together the last of which was the 1984 comedy ALL OF ME starring Martin and Lilly Tomlin. And like all Reiner/Martin comedies this one is smartly written with heart and a physically comedic performance by Martin that must be seen to believed.
Martin stars as Lawyer Martin Cobb, an aspiring musician who views his lawyer job as a means to support his dream of becoming a musician. Lilly Tomlin co-stars as one of Martin's clients - a dour, serious millionaire who's dying wish is to have her soul transferred into the body of a younger woman. When the transfer goes wrong, Tomlin finds herself inside Martin's body and the two polar opposites spar each other whilst inside the same body.
A pretty ridiculous premise that is executed wonderfully under the watchful Direction of Reiner. He pushes the premise far - but not too far - focusing (wisely) most of the attention of this movie on Martin and his body's maniacal behavior as both Martin and Tomlin wrestle for control of his body.
Martin, of course, is perfectly cast in a role that was tailor made for him. His physical comedy skills are well used by Reiner and the scene of Martin walking down the street in control of the left side of his body while Tomlin is in control of the right side of his body is worth the price of admission right there. But Martin brings a heart and warmth to his character as well as his well known personae of a person who thinks he is the only sane one in the room - where, in fact, he is the INSANE one.
Tomlin fares less well in her role - being trapped (literally) inside Martin's body and is only seen as reflections in a mirror. Here character is the polar opposite of Martin's, so while Martin is "wild and crazy", she is dour and buttoned up - and this doesn't do her any favors.
Special notice needs to be made of Richard Libertini's turn as Prahka Lasa, the well-meaning "yogi" who is the conduit of the body switching soul. His limited English, earnest and well meaning almost steals the film from Martin.
All in all, an enjoyable evening at the movies which showcases Reiner's ability as a Director and Martin's ability as a gifted, physical comedian very well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starting with THE JERK (1979), Martin and Reiner would make 4 films together the last of which was the 1984 comedy ALL OF ME starring Martin and Lilly Tomlin. And like all Reiner/Martin comedies this one is smartly written with heart and a physically comedic performance by Martin that must be seen to believed.
Martin stars as Lawyer Martin Cobb, an aspiring musician who views his lawyer job as a means to support his dream of becoming a musician. Lilly Tomlin co-stars as one of Martin's clients - a dour, serious millionaire who's dying wish is to have her soul transferred into the body of a younger woman. When the transfer goes wrong, Tomlin finds herself inside Martin's body and the two polar opposites spar each other whilst inside the same body.
A pretty ridiculous premise that is executed wonderfully under the watchful Direction of Reiner. He pushes the premise far - but not too far - focusing (wisely) most of the attention of this movie on Martin and his body's maniacal behavior as both Martin and Tomlin wrestle for control of his body.
Martin, of course, is perfectly cast in a role that was tailor made for him. His physical comedy skills are well used by Reiner and the scene of Martin walking down the street in control of the left side of his body while Tomlin is in control of the right side of his body is worth the price of admission right there. But Martin brings a heart and warmth to his character as well as his well known personae of a person who thinks he is the only sane one in the room - where, in fact, he is the INSANE one.
Tomlin fares less well in her role - being trapped (literally) inside Martin's body and is only seen as reflections in a mirror. Here character is the polar opposite of Martin's, so while Martin is "wild and crazy", she is dour and buttoned up - and this doesn't do her any favors.
Special notice needs to be made of Richard Libertini's turn as Prahka Lasa, the well-meaning "yogi" who is the conduit of the body switching soul. His limited English, earnest and well meaning almost steals the film from Martin.
All in all, an enjoyable evening at the movies which showcases Reiner's ability as a Director and Martin's ability as a gifted, physical comedian very well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)