Search
Search results
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Jan 20, 2018
Acting/Directing/All the technical stuff (1 more)
Screenplay
It sucked me in
It's hard to believe Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg have not teamed up for a film until now, but this movie makes this fact worth the wait.
The story took a little while to grab hold of me and to understand fully the implications as to what was happening (maybe I am a little slow), but once it gets going it doesn't stop. All the actors are on the top of their game and pull off hearty performances.
It is difficult for a historical film like this to grab hold of you since a lot of people already know the climax, but great films like Apollo 13, Titanic and this one manage to pull it off.
Glad it had a wide release before the Oscars this year.
The story took a little while to grab hold of me and to understand fully the implications as to what was happening (maybe I am a little slow), but once it gets going it doesn't stop. All the actors are on the top of their game and pull off hearty performances.
It is difficult for a historical film like this to grab hold of you since a lot of people already know the climax, but great films like Apollo 13, Titanic and this one manage to pull it off.
Glad it had a wide release before the Oscars this year.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Apollo 13 (1995) in Movies
Jul 21, 2018
No problems here!
Everyone was waiting to see what Tom Hanks would do next after winning his back-to-back Oscars for Philadelphia and Forrest Gump. It ended up being another wondrous film about the true story of the doomed space mission and the many people who banded together to help save the lives of the three astronauts.
Everything about the film is fantastic including the acting, screenplay and special effects. If this film were made today, I think filmmakers would have tried to go too high tech and CGI when this is a human story and a triumph of the human spirit vs. something more savvy.
I really miss Bill Paxton most of all. His performance in the film was magnificent and hilarious, just like all his memorable characters. I truly miss him every day.
Through my melancholies, I was able to enjoy a perfect film like this. You know you are watching something truly awe-inspiring when you know how it's going to end and it still chokes you up.
Everything about the film is fantastic including the acting, screenplay and special effects. If this film were made today, I think filmmakers would have tried to go too high tech and CGI when this is a human story and a triumph of the human spirit vs. something more savvy.
I really miss Bill Paxton most of all. His performance in the film was magnificent and hilarious, just like all his memorable characters. I truly miss him every day.
Through my melancholies, I was able to enjoy a perfect film like this. You know you are watching something truly awe-inspiring when you know how it's going to end and it still chokes you up.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Infernal
Dan Brown has had a bad rap over the years from snobbish reviewers who dismiss his work as “trash”. I’m sure to a large degree the multi-millionaire Dan Brown couldn’t give a toss! I personally enjoyed both the books and Ron Howard’s films of “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels and Demons” as glossy escapism. Occasionally though books will generate a “WHHAAAT??” moment and Brown’s 2013 novel “Inferno” generated just such a response in its dramatic conclusion… and (for me at least) not in a good way. As someone always looking at script potential in books, the words “unfilmable” came to mind. So veteran screenwriter David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”, “Mission Impossible”, “Spiderman”) is to be congratulated in ‘adapting’ the story to provide a coherent screenplay.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Snore...
Based on a C.S. Forester novel The Good Shepherd, and a screenplay by Mr Tom Hanks himself, Greyhound is the latest movie to feature Hanks in the role of brave Captain, returning once more to World War II territory. Any hopes that this might be a return to the grand heights of Saving Private Ryan though are soon laid to rest.
Set in 1942, Hanks plays Captain Ernest Krause, responsible for one of only a handful of warships as they escort and protect an even larger number of merchant vessels making the journey across the Atlantic Ocean with vital supplies for England. They will be entering what’s known as ‘the black pit’ – a stretch of Ocean too far out at sea for any aerial cover to be provided by the countries on either side. For a few days, they will be on their own, and at the mercy of any German U-boats they may encounter.
Greyhound wastes no time in landing us right in the thick of it all, joining the crew as they enter the black pit, and sticking with them while they attempt to make it to relative safety on the other side. Obviously, it’s not long before a number of U-boats target the fleet of vessels and begin trying to pick them off in a tense game of cat and mouse at sea.
There is a LOT of nautical jargon in Greyhound and twenty minutes in, I was already feeling exhausted just trying to follow it all and gain any kind of enjoyment out of the movie. Despite throwing the occasion title up on screen to tell us which vessel we’re looking at out on the gloomy CGI seas, it’s also not always clear which ship is which, or who’s firing at who either. That attention to detailed dialogue really doesn’t let up one bit either, making what is only a 91 minute movie feel so much longer.
By throwing us straight into the action, we’re also given no time to learn or even care about any of the characters. Krause is only given a couple of brief flashback scenes, showing us with his partner two months earlier, played by Elizabeth Shue. Other than knowing this is his first Atlantic crossing, and that he is fully committed to the job in hand, refusing to eat any of the hot meals regularly brought to him by the ship’s cook, we’re provided very little information about our Captain.
The crew are also there just to fire off updates to their Captain and respond to his commands, providing no character development whatsoever for them either and giving us nothing to feel invested in, other than a desire for them all to make it safely to England.
With the focus of the movie entirely on the crew and setting of the Greyhound, we only hear from other characters via radio – calls for support from the other vessels, or psychological jaunts from the Germans on the U-boat. Again, by not giving us the viewpoint of any other side or vessel, it all makes for a very one dimensional and dull ride. Definitely not one of Tom Hanks finest.
Set in 1942, Hanks plays Captain Ernest Krause, responsible for one of only a handful of warships as they escort and protect an even larger number of merchant vessels making the journey across the Atlantic Ocean with vital supplies for England. They will be entering what’s known as ‘the black pit’ – a stretch of Ocean too far out at sea for any aerial cover to be provided by the countries on either side. For a few days, they will be on their own, and at the mercy of any German U-boats they may encounter.
Greyhound wastes no time in landing us right in the thick of it all, joining the crew as they enter the black pit, and sticking with them while they attempt to make it to relative safety on the other side. Obviously, it’s not long before a number of U-boats target the fleet of vessels and begin trying to pick them off in a tense game of cat and mouse at sea.
There is a LOT of nautical jargon in Greyhound and twenty minutes in, I was already feeling exhausted just trying to follow it all and gain any kind of enjoyment out of the movie. Despite throwing the occasion title up on screen to tell us which vessel we’re looking at out on the gloomy CGI seas, it’s also not always clear which ship is which, or who’s firing at who either. That attention to detailed dialogue really doesn’t let up one bit either, making what is only a 91 minute movie feel so much longer.
By throwing us straight into the action, we’re also given no time to learn or even care about any of the characters. Krause is only given a couple of brief flashback scenes, showing us with his partner two months earlier, played by Elizabeth Shue. Other than knowing this is his first Atlantic crossing, and that he is fully committed to the job in hand, refusing to eat any of the hot meals regularly brought to him by the ship’s cook, we’re provided very little information about our Captain.
The crew are also there just to fire off updates to their Captain and respond to his commands, providing no character development whatsoever for them either and giving us nothing to feel invested in, other than a desire for them all to make it safely to England.
With the focus of the movie entirely on the crew and setting of the Greyhound, we only hear from other characters via radio – calls for support from the other vessels, or psychological jaunts from the Germans on the U-boat. Again, by not giving us the viewpoint of any other side or vessel, it all makes for a very one dimensional and dull ride. Definitely not one of Tom Hanks finest.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Aug 9, 2020
Hanks and Stephen Graham. (1 more)
Tense cat and mouse hunting
Grey but exciting.
Here's a great movie trivia question for you.... which 2020 movies link Claire Duburcq and Elizabeth Shue, and why? The answer is at the end of this review!
The battle of the Atlantic, which ran from 1939 to the end of the war, was a key battleground of World War 2. Failure to supply the European battlefront with fresh supplies and troops from the States would spell certain failure. (The wiki page addressing this is here.) But it's a field of combat that has been relatively overlooked at the movies. Of the handful of feature films, the most famous are that famously stiff-upper-lipped British offering "The Cruel Sea" from 1953 and Wolfgang Petersen's original 1981 U-boat film, "Das Boot", seeing it from the German's side.
Here, the subject gets the full Tom Hanks treatment. Not only does he star in the movie, but he also wrote it, based on the C.S. Forester novel "The Good Shepherd".
We join Captain Krause (Tom Hanks, with a strangely German-sounding name!) on dry land awaiting his beloved Evelyn (Elizabeth Shue) for a proposal. But that's the last dry land we see in the movie, since Krause is captaining the US destroyer "Greyhound" on its maiden voyage to protect a convoy of UK and US ships heading for England. But danger lurks beneath the waves as a pack of U-boats attempt to sink as many vessels as possible.
The issue with a movie about a war-time transatlantic crossing is that the ships are grey, the sky is grey and the sea is grey. It's a monochromatic and rather depressing context for a movie. To combat that, the CGI used to recreate the action needs to be good, and thankfully the film delivers in that department.
Where I had quibbles - and I'm not sure whether this was in Hank's original screenplay or the result of director Aaron Schneider's attempts at "added flair" - was in stopping the action mid-scene for a zoom up above the clouds to see the Aurora Borealis. Unnecessary and distracting.
Where the film really scores is in the tense action sequences. As a viewer, I found myself straining forwards in my seat for the "ping" of the sonar! The cat and mouse games being played out with the hidden foe are certainly well done.... albeit a colleague of mine refuses to watch it because "torpedoes don't bounce off the sides of ships" as shown in the trailer!
Perhaps what might have made the film richer still would have been the view from the German side. Another star name as the 'heard but never seen' mocking U-boat commander might have turned this into even more of a Shakespearean battle-royale.
Overall, this is an enthralling and enjoyable watch that I would recommend. Tom Hanks delivers YET another compelling captain role. It seems to be the rank that he naturally gravitates to.... having the gravitas to command, but not being too far removed from the common man. Here he is supported by the omnipresent Stephen Graham, also equally good.
It's a great shame that this never got the wide-screen cinematic release, because Greyhound deserved it. Who knows, perhaps with cinemas spasmodically opening up, there's still time for a national release. That would be good, and I'd certainly go and see it again on the big screen.
And, by the way, the answer to my trivia question is this film - Greyhound - and 1917. The reason being that in both movies the actresses named were the sole female players within the whole cast.
(For the full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/01/one-manns-movies-film-review-greyhound-2020/ .)
The battle of the Atlantic, which ran from 1939 to the end of the war, was a key battleground of World War 2. Failure to supply the European battlefront with fresh supplies and troops from the States would spell certain failure. (The wiki page addressing this is here.) But it's a field of combat that has been relatively overlooked at the movies. Of the handful of feature films, the most famous are that famously stiff-upper-lipped British offering "The Cruel Sea" from 1953 and Wolfgang Petersen's original 1981 U-boat film, "Das Boot", seeing it from the German's side.
Here, the subject gets the full Tom Hanks treatment. Not only does he star in the movie, but he also wrote it, based on the C.S. Forester novel "The Good Shepherd".
We join Captain Krause (Tom Hanks, with a strangely German-sounding name!) on dry land awaiting his beloved Evelyn (Elizabeth Shue) for a proposal. But that's the last dry land we see in the movie, since Krause is captaining the US destroyer "Greyhound" on its maiden voyage to protect a convoy of UK and US ships heading for England. But danger lurks beneath the waves as a pack of U-boats attempt to sink as many vessels as possible.
The issue with a movie about a war-time transatlantic crossing is that the ships are grey, the sky is grey and the sea is grey. It's a monochromatic and rather depressing context for a movie. To combat that, the CGI used to recreate the action needs to be good, and thankfully the film delivers in that department.
Where I had quibbles - and I'm not sure whether this was in Hank's original screenplay or the result of director Aaron Schneider's attempts at "added flair" - was in stopping the action mid-scene for a zoom up above the clouds to see the Aurora Borealis. Unnecessary and distracting.
Where the film really scores is in the tense action sequences. As a viewer, I found myself straining forwards in my seat for the "ping" of the sonar! The cat and mouse games being played out with the hidden foe are certainly well done.... albeit a colleague of mine refuses to watch it because "torpedoes don't bounce off the sides of ships" as shown in the trailer!
Perhaps what might have made the film richer still would have been the view from the German side. Another star name as the 'heard but never seen' mocking U-boat commander might have turned this into even more of a Shakespearean battle-royale.
Overall, this is an enthralling and enjoyable watch that I would recommend. Tom Hanks delivers YET another compelling captain role. It seems to be the rank that he naturally gravitates to.... having the gravitas to command, but not being too far removed from the common man. Here he is supported by the omnipresent Stephen Graham, also equally good.
It's a great shame that this never got the wide-screen cinematic release, because Greyhound deserved it. Who knows, perhaps with cinemas spasmodically opening up, there's still time for a national release. That would be good, and I'd certainly go and see it again on the big screen.
And, by the way, the answer to my trivia question is this film - Greyhound - and 1917. The reason being that in both movies the actresses named were the sole female players within the whole cast.
(For the full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/01/one-manns-movies-film-review-greyhound-2020/ .)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Funny, Heartwarming, And Beautifully Animated
Toy Story 4 is a 2019 CG/comedy movie directed by Josh Cooley and based on screenplay written by Andrew Stanton, and Stephany Folsom; along with John Lasseter, Rashida Jones, Will McCormack, Valerie LaPointe, and Martin Hynes. It was produced by Picard Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts, Tony Hale, Keegan-Michael Key, Jordan Peele and Keanu Reeves.
Woody (Tom Hanks) and the other toys are happy in their new life after Andy donates his toys to Bonnie; but Woody worries Bonnie will feel overwhelmed at school when she starts kindergarten. Woody sneaks into her backpack and recovers her arts and crafts supplies when a classmate throws them away. She uses the supplies, including a spork Woody grabbed to create a handmade toy she names "Forky" (Tony Hale). And when Bonnie and her family go on a road trip, Forky jumps out of the window setting off a chain of events that will change the group forever.
This movie was funny, stunningly animated, and emotionally touching. They really were shooting to impress with the amount of detail they had in this movie, from the glossy porcelain shine of Bopeep, to the fur on the cat, to all the other toys little details. I liked how the action was very character driven and how the storytelling was really well done. The character growth/arc for Bopeep was one of my favorites and I really enjoyed the cast of new characters and how they were incorporated as well like, Keanu Reeves and Key and Peele. This was such a great movie and it got me choked up at the end of the movie and I couldn't find anything to really complain about but then I read an article that made me question how I felt about it and what I saw. I'll see if I can add the link to it at the end of my review. It ultimately made me drop my rating by a point, I almost gave this movie a 9, but I give it a 8/10. But I do give it my "Must See Seal Of Approval".
Here is the link to the article: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/theres-a-problem-with-toy-story-4-opinion/1100-6468073/
Woody (Tom Hanks) and the other toys are happy in their new life after Andy donates his toys to Bonnie; but Woody worries Bonnie will feel overwhelmed at school when she starts kindergarten. Woody sneaks into her backpack and recovers her arts and crafts supplies when a classmate throws them away. She uses the supplies, including a spork Woody grabbed to create a handmade toy she names "Forky" (Tony Hale). And when Bonnie and her family go on a road trip, Forky jumps out of the window setting off a chain of events that will change the group forever.
This movie was funny, stunningly animated, and emotionally touching. They really were shooting to impress with the amount of detail they had in this movie, from the glossy porcelain shine of Bopeep, to the fur on the cat, to all the other toys little details. I liked how the action was very character driven and how the storytelling was really well done. The character growth/arc for Bopeep was one of my favorites and I really enjoyed the cast of new characters and how they were incorporated as well like, Keanu Reeves and Key and Peele. This was such a great movie and it got me choked up at the end of the movie and I couldn't find anything to really complain about but then I read an article that made me question how I felt about it and what I saw. I'll see if I can add the link to it at the end of my review. It ultimately made me drop my rating by a point, I almost gave this movie a 9, but I give it a 8/10. But I do give it my "Must See Seal Of Approval".
Here is the link to the article: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/theres-a-problem-with-toy-story-4-opinion/1100-6468073/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Toy Story (1995) in Movies
Dec 16, 2018
Truly a classic
With Toy Story 4 coming out in theaters this summer, I thought I'd go back and check out a beloved classice - the original TOY STORY (1995) to see if this film holds up to my memory of it.
It sure does.
Directed by visionary Pixar founder John Lasseter, TOY STORY is the first computer generated full-length motion picture and tells the...story...of toys that come to life when the humans leave the room. It is a simple concept that is executed beautifully with wit, charm and heart that sustains to this day and (I would imagine) to infinity...and beyond.
Besides the revolutionary CGI work (which mostly holds up), the heartwarming story and the crispness of the pacing of the film, the masterstroke here is the pitch perfect voice casting. Tom Hanks was the first - and only - choice for Woody, the Cowboy doll that has been the main toy for Andy. His confidence is shattered when Andy receives a Buzz Lightyear action figure for his birthday and he struggles to maintain control of the room - and Andy's heart. In lesser hands, this character could be be annoying and a bit of a jerk, but with Hanks' inherent charm, Woody is lovable, neurotic and vulnerable as he tries to get out of one jam after another.
Tim Allen wasn't the first choice for the voice of Buzz Lightyear, but with his success in 1994's THE SANTA CLAUS he was called into service on this film - and the results couldn't be better. He blends machismo, bluster and a sincere earnestness that perfectly pairs and counterbalances Hanks' tics to form a movie duo that ranks right up there with the best in film history.
It is the attention to detail that these filmmakers really excel at and the supporting cast of voice actors really brings it here. From Don Rickles to John Ratzenberger to Annie Potts to R. Lee Emery to Jim Varney to Laurie Metcalf, all bring charm and heart to their characters even when they are in conflict.
Speaking of attention to detail, the CGI in this film works really, really well - even after 23 years of improvements. The filmmakers were blazing a trail and there is much to look at in the background, from the 2 "Hidden Mickey's" in Andy's room to the tribute to THE SHINING, the background and renderings are lush and are worth a viewing just to look at hidden gems (and Easter Eggs) in the background.
But none of this would matter if the story wasn't any good and I give story writers Lasseter and future Pixar Director's Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton credit for keeping the story crisp, clear and simple and infusing heart and sincerity without getting cloying or annoying. Interestingly enough, in looking at the credits, Joss Whedon, Joel Cohen and Alec Sokolow were all contributors to the screenplay as well. When I see that many writers on a screenplay, I worry about continuity and flow. But, make no mistake about it, this film has a strong vision driven by Lasseter and the results on the screen show that focus.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, give yourself a treat and check it out again, it holds up very, very well and will be well worth the 84 minutes it will take to watch it (the shortest of all PIXAR films).
Letter Grade A+ - which means, of course...
A rare 10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It sure does.
Directed by visionary Pixar founder John Lasseter, TOY STORY is the first computer generated full-length motion picture and tells the...story...of toys that come to life when the humans leave the room. It is a simple concept that is executed beautifully with wit, charm and heart that sustains to this day and (I would imagine) to infinity...and beyond.
Besides the revolutionary CGI work (which mostly holds up), the heartwarming story and the crispness of the pacing of the film, the masterstroke here is the pitch perfect voice casting. Tom Hanks was the first - and only - choice for Woody, the Cowboy doll that has been the main toy for Andy. His confidence is shattered when Andy receives a Buzz Lightyear action figure for his birthday and he struggles to maintain control of the room - and Andy's heart. In lesser hands, this character could be be annoying and a bit of a jerk, but with Hanks' inherent charm, Woody is lovable, neurotic and vulnerable as he tries to get out of one jam after another.
Tim Allen wasn't the first choice for the voice of Buzz Lightyear, but with his success in 1994's THE SANTA CLAUS he was called into service on this film - and the results couldn't be better. He blends machismo, bluster and a sincere earnestness that perfectly pairs and counterbalances Hanks' tics to form a movie duo that ranks right up there with the best in film history.
It is the attention to detail that these filmmakers really excel at and the supporting cast of voice actors really brings it here. From Don Rickles to John Ratzenberger to Annie Potts to R. Lee Emery to Jim Varney to Laurie Metcalf, all bring charm and heart to their characters even when they are in conflict.
Speaking of attention to detail, the CGI in this film works really, really well - even after 23 years of improvements. The filmmakers were blazing a trail and there is much to look at in the background, from the 2 "Hidden Mickey's" in Andy's room to the tribute to THE SHINING, the background and renderings are lush and are worth a viewing just to look at hidden gems (and Easter Eggs) in the background.
But none of this would matter if the story wasn't any good and I give story writers Lasseter and future Pixar Director's Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton credit for keeping the story crisp, clear and simple and infusing heart and sincerity without getting cloying or annoying. Interestingly enough, in looking at the credits, Joss Whedon, Joel Cohen and Alec Sokolow were all contributors to the screenplay as well. When I see that many writers on a screenplay, I worry about continuity and flow. But, make no mistake about it, this film has a strong vision driven by Lasseter and the results on the screen show that focus.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, give yourself a treat and check it out again, it holds up very, very well and will be well worth the 84 minutes it will take to watch it (the shortest of all PIXAR films).
Letter Grade A+ - which means, of course...
A rare 10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Landing the Hindenburg in a Thunderstorm.
What a combination: Streep, Hanks, Spielberg, Kaminski behind the camera, Williams behind the notes. What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Nothing as it turns out. After, for me, the disappointment of “The BFG” here is Spielberg on firm ground and at the height of his game.
It’s 1971 and the New York Times is in trouble for publishing what became known as “The Pentagon Papers”: a damning account of multiple administration’s dodgy dealings around the Vietnam War, put together by Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek: Into Darkness“) and meant for “posterity” – not for publication! Watching from the sidelines with frustration at their competitor’s scoop are the Washington Post’s editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“, “Inferno“) and the new owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “Suffragette“). With immaculate timing, Graham is taking the paper public, so needs the newspaper embroiled in any sort of scandal like a hole in the head. But with the US First Amendment under pressure, will Graham and Bradlee put their business and their freedom at risk by publishing and being damned?
Bradlee (Tom Hanks) and Graham (Meryl Streep) in the Washington Post’s newsroom.
Both of the leads play characters that are quite strikingly out of character from their normal roles.
In a seamingly endless run of ‘kick-ass’ women in the movie driving seat, here I expected Streep to be in full “Iron Lady” mode, but in fact she starts the film as quite the opposite: nervous, timid, vascillating. For although the story is about “The Washington Post” and “The Pentagon Papers”, the real story is about Graham herself (Liz Hannah’s script is actually based on Graham’s autobiography). In many ways it’s about a woman, in a male world, overcoming her fear and finding her own voice. As has been demonstrated in many recent films (“Hidden Figures” for example) the working world for woman has changed so markedly since the 60’s and 70’s that it’s almost impossible to relate to these chavenistic attitudes. Graham is repeatedly downtrodden as “not good enough” by her underlings within earshot, and then thanks them “for their frankness”. When the women folk retire at dinner, to let the men-folk talk politics, Graham meekly goes with them. Even her father, for God’s sake, left the newspaper not to her but to her (now late) husband! It’s no surprise then that she is coming from a pretty low base of self-confidence, and her journey in the film – as expertly played by Streep – is an extraordinarily rousing one.
The real deal: Ben Bradlee and Kay Graham.
Hanks, normally the guy you’d most like to invite round for dinner (@tomhanks if you happen to be reading this sir, that’s a genuine invitation… we make a mean lasagne here!) also plays somewhat outside of his normal character here. As Bradlee, he is snappy, brusque and businesslike. Although I don’t think he could ever quite match the irascibility of the character’s portrayal by Jason Robards in the classic “All the President’s Men” – who could? – its a character with real screen presence.
The similarities with Alan J Pakula’s 1976 classic Watergate movie – one of my personal favourites – don’t stop there. The same sets that were once populated by Redford and Hoffman are gloriously reproduced with Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski delivering great tracking shots through the newsroom. (Watch out for Sacha Spielberg – daughter of Stephen and Kate Capshaw – who also turns up there delivering a package).
The scoop revealed: Odenkirk, Hanks and David Cross get the low-down.
The supporting cast includes Sarah Paulson (so memorable in “The Trial of O.J. Simpson”) as Bradlee’s wife Tony, Bradley Whitford (“The West Wing”, “Get Out“) and Tracy Letts (“The Big Short“) as two of Graham’s board advisors and Jesse Plemons (“The Program“, “Bridge of Spies“) as the lead legal advisor. Particularly impressive though is Bob Odenkirk (“Breaking Bad”) as Ben Bagdikian, Bradlee’s lead investigative reporter on the case: all stress, loose change and paranoia in his dealings with the leaky Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys).
Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk) ordering a drink for himself and his travelling companion.
In a memorable piece of casting Richard Nixon is played by…. Richard Nixon. Although a silluohetted Curzon Dobell stalks the Oval office, the ex-president’s original phone recordings are played on the soundtrack. (There, I knew those recordings would be useful for something… thank heavens he kept them all!)
The film also demonstrates in fascinating style the newsprint business of yesteryear. When I click a button on my PC and a beautifully laser-printed page streams out of my Epson printer, it still seems like witchcraft to me! But it is extraordinary to think that newspapers in those days were put together by typesetters manually building up the pages from embossed metal letters laboriously slotted into a frame. Brilliantly evocative.
Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys) takes a risk.
If Spielberg has a fault, it is one of sentimentality – something that is pointed out in Susan Lacy’s superb HBO documentary on Spielberg (something I have yet to write a review on, but if you like Spielberg you should definitely seek out). Here he falls into that trap again, with an unnecessary bedroom scene between Graham and her daughter tipping the screenplay into mawkishness. It’s unnecessary since we don’t need the points raised rammed down our throats again. It’s something repeated in a rather bizarre final scene with Graham walking down the steps of the supreme court with admiring woman – only woman – watching her. These irritations tarnish for me what could have been a top-rated film.
But the movie is an impressive watch and older viewers, and anyone interested in American political history will, I think, love it. The film, especially with its nice epilogue, did make me immediately want to come home and put “All the President’s Men” on again… which is never a bad thing. Highly recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Cloud Atlas (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While I am not familiar with the novel, I was not excited to review the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. Though the Screenplay was written and directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) I did not know exactly what I was getting into. The trailer shows it as an epic sci-fi film crossing the time and lives of several stories and how everything and everyone is connected. Needless to say my curiosity was piqued. But I was nervous because I knew it would take a grand effort to keep this epic and ambitious project from falling flat. And well, I can honestly say that I am not quite sure if the combined effort succeeded.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.