Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Apr 13, 2020
One of the GOATS
At the time of this writing, Saving Private Ryan is sitting at fourteen on my all-time list. It is one of those once-in-a-lifetime movies that doesn’t come along too often. The story revolves around an army captain in WWII taking his men on a suicide mission to rescue a private before he is killed in action. Private Ryan’s three brothers have already been killed in action and the military wants to get the remaining Ryan home so his mother won’t have lost all of her children in one war.
Acting: 10
Where do I start? With Tom Hanks and his brilliant performance as Captain John Miller? Vin Diesel in probably one of his best roles as Private Caparzo. Tom Sizemore…Matt Damon…There are so many amazing performances that contributed to the greatness of this movie. You usually see it in glimpses as each character doesn’t get much in the way of their own screen time. The movie is packed with so many of those glimpse moments from these stellar actors, it’s hard to forget each of their roles.
Beginning: 10
Boasts one of the best opening twenty minutes in movie history. It’s violent, touching, and sucks you right in to the meat of the movie. There is so much intensity here, from the raucous sounds to the visceral feel of everything, that it’s hard to catch your breath afterwards.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
If you want knock-your-socks-off action from beginning to end, Saving Private Ryan is absolutely the movie for you. The battles are amazing giving you a front row seat to World War II. Steven Spielberg relies on a number of different camera angles to give you the full effect. Every scene is heartstopping as you realize the stakes and understand that no one is safe in this ultimate battle to stay alive. This movie has more action in the first twenty minutes than most films do through their entirety.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
For the most part, the story is pretty linear. There is a mission. Go and complete the mission. The end. However, there are two existing twists within the movie that definitely make things more interesting and entertaining. Those small tweaks were enough to satisfy my craving for originality.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
There is a scene on the beach where the camera shoots from underwater then repeatedly rises and falls in the water showing the grit of everything happening. This is one of a number of shots that makes Saving Private Ryan one of the all-time movies to ever exist in cinema. This movie is flat out amazing.
Acting: 10
Where do I start? With Tom Hanks and his brilliant performance as Captain John Miller? Vin Diesel in probably one of his best roles as Private Caparzo. Tom Sizemore…Matt Damon…There are so many amazing performances that contributed to the greatness of this movie. You usually see it in glimpses as each character doesn’t get much in the way of their own screen time. The movie is packed with so many of those glimpse moments from these stellar actors, it’s hard to forget each of their roles.
Beginning: 10
Boasts one of the best opening twenty minutes in movie history. It’s violent, touching, and sucks you right in to the meat of the movie. There is so much intensity here, from the raucous sounds to the visceral feel of everything, that it’s hard to catch your breath afterwards.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
If you want knock-your-socks-off action from beginning to end, Saving Private Ryan is absolutely the movie for you. The battles are amazing giving you a front row seat to World War II. Steven Spielberg relies on a number of different camera angles to give you the full effect. Every scene is heartstopping as you realize the stakes and understand that no one is safe in this ultimate battle to stay alive. This movie has more action in the first twenty minutes than most films do through their entirety.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
For the most part, the story is pretty linear. There is a mission. Go and complete the mission. The end. However, there are two existing twists within the movie that definitely make things more interesting and entertaining. Those small tweaks were enough to satisfy my craving for originality.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
There is a scene on the beach where the camera shoots from underwater then repeatedly rises and falls in the water showing the grit of everything happening. This is one of a number of shots that makes Saving Private Ryan one of the all-time movies to ever exist in cinema. This movie is flat out amazing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 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.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020 (Updated Feb 2, 2020)
Hello Neighbor
A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood is an inspiring and delightful film about a man that was oh so smart and oh so pleasant. I just want to say from the start what an absolute joy this film was to watch, there was something so warm and wonderful there constantly that kept my full attention the entire time and when it ended I almost felt sad there wasnt more of it. Tom Hanks plays Fred Rogers aka Mr Rogers as hes known by most. An intriguing man who is almost investigated/interrogated by writer Lloyd Voge who has many troubles of his own. Hanks transforms seamlessly into Rogers with all his mannerisms replicated flawlessly even down to whats going on behined his eyes. Rogers may seem like theres something more sinister behined him at times but truth is he had a troubled past too and while maybe not a war veteran its almost as if you can see signs of depression or ptsd behined those eyes from the way he was treated in his youth of from the general weight of his job. But its the way the way hes learnt to deal with his anger, frustrations and demons thats so fascinating and how he manages to keep stong/humble so he can teach other children to overcome the harshness of life and the dark times they may face ahead of them thats trully inspiring and commendable. Llyods transformation during the film is also depicted amazingly too, hes so troubled hes almost beyond help, struggling with such emotions as grief, hatred and stress hes seemingly stuck on an ever declining path of sadness. That is until he meets rogers and the on screen interactions between these two are the absolute bread and butter to watch here as rogers uses his philosophy and good nature to help him find happiness in himself once again. See the thing is adults tend to dismiss anything they consider 'childish' but more often than not these so called childish things they dismiss contain more answers, escapism and advise for our problems than anything else be it by nostalgia, wisdom or philosophy or simple innocence. I loved how the tv show scenes felt so nostalgic that you could swear they were filmed way back in the past and the choice to use a different aspect ratio for them was smart. Its odd to say but theres definitely a subbtle element of horror and creepiness I found here too especially with some of the almost fever dream type scenes which worked extreamly well and broke up the film nicely. Lastly I would say if you are planning to see this be prepared to cry as its not only incredibly heartfelt it also constantly deals with very depressing subject matter too. So many times I found It depicted problems, situations, feelings and nostalgia to things that I have faced in my own life leading to me to tear up like it was speaking specifically to only me as I questioned my own life, feelings, relationships and decisions in my head. A splendid film that teaches us how life is to short to waste time on anger/hate and that we should instead spend and cherish the time we have here with the ones we love before its to late.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Toy Story (1995) in Movies
Jan 22, 2018
Classic
Toy Story's magic amazingly manages to hold decades after its 1995 release. Woody (Tom Hanks), a toy cowboy, is used to being king of the roost in owner Andy's home. When a shiny new toy shows up by the name of Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), Buzz and Woody have to figure out a way to coexist in Andy's room.
While the movie largely revolves around the big characters of Buzz and Woody, Toy Story would be nothing without the rest of its fun and lovable crew. My personal favorite was Rex (Wallace Shawn) a T-Rex scared of disappointing any and everyone. His numerous moments of distress keep the comedy level ramped up. He is the antithesis of a film that stresses living in the now as he is always worried about what's going to happen next.
It's an adventure that takes you all over the place while breaking animation barriers in the process. You'll explore an exciting world through the eyes of tiny toys where everything is much bigger. From racing through Pizza Planet and escaping "The Claw" (Ohhhhhhh) to harrowing escapes from attack dogs and evil neighbor kids, you're never bored from one moment to the next. Seriously, what's not to like?
There are so many classic scenes, it's hard to keep track. One scene in particular saw Woody trying to communicate with the other toys from neighbor Sid's window. He's trying to prove that Buzz is still alive but only has Buzz's arm. All hell breaks loose when the other toys realize the truth. The scene is less than two minutes, but easily one of the most memorable.
I saw this film for the first time when I was eleven and the message was lost on me then. Years later, it's staring me dead in the face: It's about not trying to be something you aren't but rather focusing on being the best YOU you can be. It's a magical film that takes us back to a time before video games were everything. The first of one of the best trilogies ever done, I give it a solid 98.
While the movie largely revolves around the big characters of Buzz and Woody, Toy Story would be nothing without the rest of its fun and lovable crew. My personal favorite was Rex (Wallace Shawn) a T-Rex scared of disappointing any and everyone. His numerous moments of distress keep the comedy level ramped up. He is the antithesis of a film that stresses living in the now as he is always worried about what's going to happen next.
It's an adventure that takes you all over the place while breaking animation barriers in the process. You'll explore an exciting world through the eyes of tiny toys where everything is much bigger. From racing through Pizza Planet and escaping "The Claw" (Ohhhhhhh) to harrowing escapes from attack dogs and evil neighbor kids, you're never bored from one moment to the next. Seriously, what's not to like?
There are so many classic scenes, it's hard to keep track. One scene in particular saw Woody trying to communicate with the other toys from neighbor Sid's window. He's trying to prove that Buzz is still alive but only has Buzz's arm. All hell breaks loose when the other toys realize the truth. The scene is less than two minutes, but easily one of the most memorable.
I saw this film for the first time when I was eleven and the message was lost on me then. Years later, it's staring me dead in the face: It's about not trying to be something you aren't but rather focusing on being the best YOU you can be. It's a magical film that takes us back to a time before video games were everything. The first of one of the best trilogies ever done, I give it a solid 98.
Corey Richard Bennett (10 KP) rated The Lost Symbol: (Robert Langdon Book 3) in Books
Jul 19, 2019
Drags on after action ends (1 more)
Unsatisfactory ending
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay, so the third book in the Robert Langdon takes Robert through Washington D.C. as he tries to save a friend, who has been taken hostage. With help from the hostage's sister, Robert unravels a secret path by the Freemasons. Long story short, Robert saves his friend gets the girl and learns truths of the Freemasons no else has.
So overall the story is typical Dan Brown. Twists and turns at every turn, switching views from each chapter. Robert does Robert stuff with figuring everything out in due time. (By the way, I can't read these without thinking of Tom Hanks being Langdon anymore).
But the one thing I want to focus on is the villain. He is by far the most compelling part of this whole book. Spoiler is he dies about 3/4ths of the book in and once he is gone, that dragging on feeling sets in. There is no trouble, no sense of urgency and the book dies off after that for me. But back to our villain. He is revealed to be Mr. Hostage's son who was once thought dead, but more like transformed into a whole different person. You learn that he came from money, went to prison, is left there by his father, fakes his death, and then tries to steal a family heirloom he feels will help him unlock the secrets of Freemasonry and being the perfect human. My one gripe is Dan Brown pretty much tells you it's not the son, and then says oh yeah it is the son. There's a difference from being sneaky, and just lying to create suspense. Oh well, but before his death, the son is cunning, stealthy, and barbaric (drowning an assistant for a key card). He is a very interesting character and you do miss him once he is killed.
Overall its an okay book, but Inferno or Da Vinci Code were better stories, but if you like U.S. History, it should kill some time for you and keep you enthralled for most the book.
So overall the story is typical Dan Brown. Twists and turns at every turn, switching views from each chapter. Robert does Robert stuff with figuring everything out in due time. (By the way, I can't read these without thinking of Tom Hanks being Langdon anymore).
But the one thing I want to focus on is the villain. He is by far the most compelling part of this whole book. Spoiler is he dies about 3/4ths of the book in and once he is gone, that dragging on feeling sets in. There is no trouble, no sense of urgency and the book dies off after that for me. But back to our villain. He is revealed to be Mr. Hostage's son who was once thought dead, but more like transformed into a whole different person. You learn that he came from money, went to prison, is left there by his father, fakes his death, and then tries to steal a family heirloom he feels will help him unlock the secrets of Freemasonry and being the perfect human. My one gripe is Dan Brown pretty much tells you it's not the son, and then says oh yeah it is the son. There's a difference from being sneaky, and just lying to create suspense. Oh well, but before his death, the son is cunning, stealthy, and barbaric (drowning an assistant for a key card). He is a very interesting character and you do miss him once he is killed.
Overall its an okay book, but Inferno or Da Vinci Code were better stories, but if you like U.S. History, it should kill some time for you and keep you enthralled for most the book.
Russ Troutt (291 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
It was a beautiful night in the theater, a beautiful night in the theater, would ya go see, could ya go see, won't you go see A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. No shame in saying I cried throughout this whole movie. Tom Hanks is amazing as always, but the entire cast is great. I wrote a poem after watching the documentary last year and felt like it would be fitting on this review as well.
It's always a beautiful day in the neighborhood,
For in the worst of times you always made me see the good.
You would walk in with a smile on your face,
I knew that I was welcome at your place.
And no matter the weather,
You would put on your sweater.
Then you would sit down to put on more comfortable shoes,
Making me comfortable knowing I had a neighbor like you.
Together we would feed the fish,
Sometimes go to the kitchen and make a dish.
It was always my brain and heart that you were feeding,
As a kid you knew exactly what I was needing.
Messages would come from Mr. McFeely,
Who would show up with a speedy delivery.
When I'd hear the bell of the trolley,
I'd get excited and feel jolly.
For I knew we were off to visit our puppetry friends,
On the other side of the tunnel in make believe land.
You taught me what to do with my mad,
And that it was okay to be sad.
You helped in dealing with the bad and serious issues of the world,
But at the end of everyday in me the good you had restored.
In our daily meetings on television with me there is so much that you left,
I am special, amazing the way I am, and in the scary to be the one that helps.
It was in your words that I did find,
The key to success is being kind.
In many ways you were a savior whose love will always be savored,
Mister Rogers I will be forever grateful that you were my neighbor.
It's always a beautiful day in the neighborhood,
For in the worst of times you always made me see the good.
You would walk in with a smile on your face,
I knew that I was welcome at your place.
And no matter the weather,
You would put on your sweater.
Then you would sit down to put on more comfortable shoes,
Making me comfortable knowing I had a neighbor like you.
Together we would feed the fish,
Sometimes go to the kitchen and make a dish.
It was always my brain and heart that you were feeding,
As a kid you knew exactly what I was needing.
Messages would come from Mr. McFeely,
Who would show up with a speedy delivery.
When I'd hear the bell of the trolley,
I'd get excited and feel jolly.
For I knew we were off to visit our puppetry friends,
On the other side of the tunnel in make believe land.
You taught me what to do with my mad,
And that it was okay to be sad.
You helped in dealing with the bad and serious issues of the world,
But at the end of everyday in me the good you had restored.
In our daily meetings on television with me there is so much that you left,
I am special, amazing the way I am, and in the scary to be the one that helps.
It was in your words that I did find,
The key to success is being kind.
In many ways you were a savior whose love will always be savored,
Mister Rogers I will be forever grateful that you were my neighbor.
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 (971 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 (5589 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!
