Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated Hudson Hawk (1991) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Hudson Hawk starts when Hudson (Willis) is released from prison, only to be drawn into committing one more burglary with his partner in crime Tommy Five-Tone (Aiello). The next day Hudson learns that not everything was as simple as just stealing a horse figure.
Hudson learns that the piece that he steals is involved in the world dominations and follow a strange amount of events, finds himself working for Darwin Mayflower (Grant), stealing the great works of Da Vinci.
Thoughts on Hudson Hawk
Characters – Hudson Hawk is a cat burglar that even after getting released from prison ends up back in the world of crime, only after stealing the first piece of art, he ends up needing to battle a world domination plan which takes him to the most famous art galleries in the world. he is wise-cracking that often on makes his own holes deeper without trying to. Tommy Five-Tone is the best friend of Hudson and does work with him on the crimes, he is often the butt of most of the jokes going on through the film. Anna Baragli is a nun that is undercover trying to stop the Da Vinci crystals coming together, she pushes off the flirts from Hudson who doesn’t learn her true place until too late. George Kaplan is the head of the CIA team tracking down Hudson, he knows each move he makes and will follow him to every location the job takes him too.
Performances – Bruce Willis really struggles with anything comical and this shows just how badly he handles this material, Danny Aiello does ok with the supporting comic moments. Andie MacDowell looks lost in this role for the most part, with only James Coburn seemingly knowing his place in the film.
Story – The story follows a cat burglar that gets given a job which soon sees him travel the world forced into helping criminals try to claim world dominance. The story here does feel very messy, it might well surprise where things go, but they do end up feeling completely random and make you feel like you are watching a sketch show rather than a coherent story. this is just a story that becomes difficult to watch and will end up making you lose interest quickly in the film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action plays into the comedy, we have silly moments throughout the film which try to get laughs and fail to achieve this, we do enter a crime world that does feel like it will just be robbery before getting out of hand.
Settings – The film does use the locations of the famous galleries from around the world for the main locations, with each needing to used for the latest robbery.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The comedy is a big miss throughout the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a sloppy comedy that misses more often than it hits, it feels like a drag to watch and completely miss-cast movie.
Overall: Sloppy throughout.
Hudson learns that the piece that he steals is involved in the world dominations and follow a strange amount of events, finds himself working for Darwin Mayflower (Grant), stealing the great works of Da Vinci.
Thoughts on Hudson Hawk
Characters – Hudson Hawk is a cat burglar that even after getting released from prison ends up back in the world of crime, only after stealing the first piece of art, he ends up needing to battle a world domination plan which takes him to the most famous art galleries in the world. he is wise-cracking that often on makes his own holes deeper without trying to. Tommy Five-Tone is the best friend of Hudson and does work with him on the crimes, he is often the butt of most of the jokes going on through the film. Anna Baragli is a nun that is undercover trying to stop the Da Vinci crystals coming together, she pushes off the flirts from Hudson who doesn’t learn her true place until too late. George Kaplan is the head of the CIA team tracking down Hudson, he knows each move he makes and will follow him to every location the job takes him too.
Performances – Bruce Willis really struggles with anything comical and this shows just how badly he handles this material, Danny Aiello does ok with the supporting comic moments. Andie MacDowell looks lost in this role for the most part, with only James Coburn seemingly knowing his place in the film.
Story – The story follows a cat burglar that gets given a job which soon sees him travel the world forced into helping criminals try to claim world dominance. The story here does feel very messy, it might well surprise where things go, but they do end up feeling completely random and make you feel like you are watching a sketch show rather than a coherent story. this is just a story that becomes difficult to watch and will end up making you lose interest quickly in the film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action plays into the comedy, we have silly moments throughout the film which try to get laughs and fail to achieve this, we do enter a crime world that does feel like it will just be robbery before getting out of hand.
Settings – The film does use the locations of the famous galleries from around the world for the main locations, with each needing to used for the latest robbery.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The comedy is a big miss throughout the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a sloppy comedy that misses more often than it hits, it feels like a drag to watch and completely miss-cast movie.
Overall: Sloppy throughout.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Unhinged (Splintered #2) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<i>Unhinged</i>, the second book in the <i>Splintered</i> trilogy, is <b>set an entire year after the events in <i><a title="Splintered by A.G. Howard" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-splintered-by-ag-howard/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Splintered</a></i></b>. With the curse broken, Alyssa finally hopes to have as much of a normal life as possible, despite the fact nothing is actually the same.
I personally thought that <b><i>Splintered</i> was better off a stand-alone</b> when A.G. Howard first takes us to her dark version of Wonderland. <b>The ending definitely could have taken two turns</b> – the book could have expanded into multiple books, or it could have been left alone.
With <i>Unhinged</i>, <b>I just didn't feel as passionate as I was with the first book.</b> Though Alyssa believes she has left Wonderland behind, Morpheus and Wonderland eventually come back to haunt her through dreams and violent paintings – something bad is going on and Wonderland needs Alyssa back now that she's taken her place as the Red Queen. <b>The sequel isn't as adventurous or dark – it just felt like something I would normally see in a novel.</b>
I don't even know how to phrase it – <b><i>Unhinged</i> focuses a lot in the human world; Alyssa's conflicted feelings between Morpheus and Jeb, and where she actually belongs.</b> I hoped the book would bring us back to Wonderland, but <b>I don't even think we even entered Wonderland – it came to Alyssa and it just wasn't as exotic or enchanting or amazing as it was back in book one.</b> Am I sounding whiny now?
That's not including Morpheus and Jeb. <b>Much as I like Morpheus and his sassiness, I just don't like him for the life of me. I <em>still</em> don't like Jeb</b> [for the life of me]. If I really had to choose between the two, I would probably pick Morpheus simply because he just seems to have more personality than Jeb. (Have I mentioned Morpheus has sass?) <b>All Morpheus seems to really care about is Red and how to finally get her out of his wings.</b> Alyssa is just... convenient enough to be used and he ends up falling in love with her in the process of "using" her.
Now I don't know if that's true. I'm sure he actually cares about her greatly considering their history, and I'm sure Jeb cares about her as well, even though he is overprotective and it probably seems endearing. They don't fight as much as they did back in <i>Splintered</i>, but I just don't feel anything for the corners of the love triangle. I just don't. <b>I feel completely indifferent about <i>Unhinged</i> altogether and I'll read the last book simply for the feeling of closure.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-unhinged-by-ag-howard/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
I personally thought that <b><i>Splintered</i> was better off a stand-alone</b> when A.G. Howard first takes us to her dark version of Wonderland. <b>The ending definitely could have taken two turns</b> – the book could have expanded into multiple books, or it could have been left alone.
With <i>Unhinged</i>, <b>I just didn't feel as passionate as I was with the first book.</b> Though Alyssa believes she has left Wonderland behind, Morpheus and Wonderland eventually come back to haunt her through dreams and violent paintings – something bad is going on and Wonderland needs Alyssa back now that she's taken her place as the Red Queen. <b>The sequel isn't as adventurous or dark – it just felt like something I would normally see in a novel.</b>
I don't even know how to phrase it – <b><i>Unhinged</i> focuses a lot in the human world; Alyssa's conflicted feelings between Morpheus and Jeb, and where she actually belongs.</b> I hoped the book would bring us back to Wonderland, but <b>I don't even think we even entered Wonderland – it came to Alyssa and it just wasn't as exotic or enchanting or amazing as it was back in book one.</b> Am I sounding whiny now?
That's not including Morpheus and Jeb. <b>Much as I like Morpheus and his sassiness, I just don't like him for the life of me. I <em>still</em> don't like Jeb</b> [for the life of me]. If I really had to choose between the two, I would probably pick Morpheus simply because he just seems to have more personality than Jeb. (Have I mentioned Morpheus has sass?) <b>All Morpheus seems to really care about is Red and how to finally get her out of his wings.</b> Alyssa is just... convenient enough to be used and he ends up falling in love with her in the process of "using" her.
Now I don't know if that's true. I'm sure he actually cares about her greatly considering their history, and I'm sure Jeb cares about her as well, even though he is overprotective and it probably seems endearing. They don't fight as much as they did back in <i>Splintered</i>, but I just don't feel anything for the corners of the love triangle. I just don't. <b>I feel completely indifferent about <i>Unhinged</i> altogether and I'll read the last book simply for the feeling of closure.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-unhinged-by-ag-howard/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Testosterone in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Testosterone by Danough OBrien & Liz Cowley was a work very different from anything I have ever read before. While I did give it a lower review I believe that the topic makes it worth a read it its own right. The fact that one thing that seems so small could destroy our entire world is amazing, yet the events that happen is the book I believe to be true. There were a few little surprises during the book that a reader might miss if they are not fully paying attention. I will not be forgetting this book anytime soon and will be keeping an eye out for the movie that it deserves.
Multiple objects crash into Earth with no warning as they were undetectable by our radar, and land in various bodies of water. At the crash sites, there are no remains to be found except for a mist that covers the planet temporarily. When the mist clears it becomes apparent that something devastating has happened to all the mammals on the planet. The males no longer produce testosterone. This means no more sex drive in males, in fact, they no longer even have the ability to have sex. The worst part is that there is no more viable sperm.
The lack of testosterone in the males could mean the end of the human race as no more children can be born naturally. Then it is discovered that all of this was an alien attack meant to weaken the human population on the planet over time. In a last ditch effort to save the human race all the world leaders team up to create Havens. These Havens must be kept secret form most of the population and the alien drones watching the planet. While the outside world falls into turmoil as it ages with no young to replace those passing away. Selected people are still having children through artificial insemination and preparing for war with an unknown enemy in secret. How long can these secret Havens stay a secret and when will the attack come, if at all?
What I liked best was the subject matter itself. I have never encountered an end of the world book where aliens first attack humans on a biological level. The concept was refreshing. I did, however, find the book to be dry at times. Years passed during the story but the only way to tell was because the author directly states how much time passed. The story just did not move very well at all.
Target readers for this book are mature young adults and older. Topics of artificial insemination and infertility may make this book inappropriate for younger readers. The reading level itself is not that difficult. I rate this book 2 out of 4. While the concept and subject matter was different and interesting the way it was presented was not. This is one of the few times that I would like to see it as a movie because I believe a movie version would be better.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
Multiple objects crash into Earth with no warning as they were undetectable by our radar, and land in various bodies of water. At the crash sites, there are no remains to be found except for a mist that covers the planet temporarily. When the mist clears it becomes apparent that something devastating has happened to all the mammals on the planet. The males no longer produce testosterone. This means no more sex drive in males, in fact, they no longer even have the ability to have sex. The worst part is that there is no more viable sperm.
The lack of testosterone in the males could mean the end of the human race as no more children can be born naturally. Then it is discovered that all of this was an alien attack meant to weaken the human population on the planet over time. In a last ditch effort to save the human race all the world leaders team up to create Havens. These Havens must be kept secret form most of the population and the alien drones watching the planet. While the outside world falls into turmoil as it ages with no young to replace those passing away. Selected people are still having children through artificial insemination and preparing for war with an unknown enemy in secret. How long can these secret Havens stay a secret and when will the attack come, if at all?
What I liked best was the subject matter itself. I have never encountered an end of the world book where aliens first attack humans on a biological level. The concept was refreshing. I did, however, find the book to be dry at times. Years passed during the story but the only way to tell was because the author directly states how much time passed. The story just did not move very well at all.
Target readers for this book are mature young adults and older. Topics of artificial insemination and infertility may make this book inappropriate for younger readers. The reading level itself is not that difficult. I rate this book 2 out of 4. While the concept and subject matter was different and interesting the way it was presented was not. This is one of the few times that I would like to see it as a movie because I believe a movie version would be better.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com/
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Stoker (2013) in Movies
Oct 5, 2019
Chan-wook Park, the director of Oldboy and Thirst brings audiences his unique visual style and unsettling themes in his first English speaking film.
After the death of the family's patriarch, his surviving wife and teenage daughter handle the grief in very different ways. Wife Evelyn cries at the funeral, then doesn't seem to be too morose after the appearance of her former brother-in-law, Charles. Daughter India thinks about times her and her father had together when she was a child. They seemed to have much more of a bond in hanging with one another hunting small game. Evelyn seems jealous of their relationship until brother Charlie arrives in her gazes full time.
Charlie just seems a bit to nice and proper and trying to fit in with his new female friends. Something not quite right about him. This is also noticed by the family's live in housekeeper and an aunt that drops by the house sometime after the funeral. Mysteriously, both women go missing sometime after.
India has her own issues at school dealing herself with bullies and an aggressive boy who tries to rape her. She deals with them herself, and with help from others. She seems very pleased with herself and remembers fondly what she has done.
Events then become very disturbing, family members start to show their true feelings for each and motives are explained and revealed for a memorable and unique third act.
Director Park's visual style of interesting camera angles, memorable images and close up photography here as well; however, muted compared to his usual over-the-top style of his Asian films. Disturbing images followed by exterior shots or interesting camera transitional moments are one I love to see if film and there are several of them in this piece.
The unraveling of the mystery and of the character motivations and the continually changing family dynamic are certainly the most interesting aspect of the story. Not sure if I completely understand some of the subtle thematic elements or how they relate to the overall message the film is trying to convey, but that is not a negative.
The ending is shocking and unexpected and not sure if I understand that either, but it ties the story up and makes the audience wonder what will happen to the characters after the credits roll.
Mia Wasikowska stood out to me as very good in this film. Her nuanced and emotional roller coaster of a character was done with conviction. You may remember her from the Alice in Wonderland Tim Burton reboots; however, she is much more wicked this time around.
Not sure if everyone would enjoy as it may seem boring or confusing to some. I did read several 1 and 3 star reviews along with many 9 and 10 star reviews which seem to be the type of movie I am watching lately. Those types of movies are divisive and I like to see which side I am on.
Watch for yourself and tell me what you think.
After the death of the family's patriarch, his surviving wife and teenage daughter handle the grief in very different ways. Wife Evelyn cries at the funeral, then doesn't seem to be too morose after the appearance of her former brother-in-law, Charles. Daughter India thinks about times her and her father had together when she was a child. They seemed to have much more of a bond in hanging with one another hunting small game. Evelyn seems jealous of their relationship until brother Charlie arrives in her gazes full time.
Charlie just seems a bit to nice and proper and trying to fit in with his new female friends. Something not quite right about him. This is also noticed by the family's live in housekeeper and an aunt that drops by the house sometime after the funeral. Mysteriously, both women go missing sometime after.
India has her own issues at school dealing herself with bullies and an aggressive boy who tries to rape her. She deals with them herself, and with help from others. She seems very pleased with herself and remembers fondly what she has done.
Events then become very disturbing, family members start to show their true feelings for each and motives are explained and revealed for a memorable and unique third act.
Director Park's visual style of interesting camera angles, memorable images and close up photography here as well; however, muted compared to his usual over-the-top style of his Asian films. Disturbing images followed by exterior shots or interesting camera transitional moments are one I love to see if film and there are several of them in this piece.
The unraveling of the mystery and of the character motivations and the continually changing family dynamic are certainly the most interesting aspect of the story. Not sure if I completely understand some of the subtle thematic elements or how they relate to the overall message the film is trying to convey, but that is not a negative.
The ending is shocking and unexpected and not sure if I understand that either, but it ties the story up and makes the audience wonder what will happen to the characters after the credits roll.
Mia Wasikowska stood out to me as very good in this film. Her nuanced and emotional roller coaster of a character was done with conviction. You may remember her from the Alice in Wonderland Tim Burton reboots; however, she is much more wicked this time around.
Not sure if everyone would enjoy as it may seem boring or confusing to some. I did read several 1 and 3 star reviews along with many 9 and 10 star reviews which seem to be the type of movie I am watching lately. Those types of movies are divisive and I like to see which side I am on.
Watch for yourself and tell me what you think.
CHAOS Combat Copters HD - №1 Multiplayer Helicopter Simulator 3D
Games and Entertainment
App
ENJOY WHAT IS SIMPLY THE BEST MULTIPLAYER HELICOPTER ARCADE ON TABLETS & SMARTPHONES C.H.A.O.S -...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Siempre estamos solas”
Alfonso Cuarón‘s “Roma” has been lauded with praise and award’s hype, and I must admit to have been a little bit snooty about it. A black-and-white Spanish language film with subtitles that – to be honest – looks a bit dreary: can it really be that good? Having now (finally) seen it on Netflix I can confirm that’s a big YES from my point of view. It’s a novelty of a glacially slow film that grips like a vice.
A primer on 70’s Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an “Upstairs, Downstairs” tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70’s.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleo’s personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy García García). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy – to who she is devoted – and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramón (José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events – not just the events of the ‘Mexican Dirty War’ of 1971 going on in the background – transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
It’s criminal that I wasn’t able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (“Do you KNOW how much this scene is costing for God’s sake??”), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life – second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June ’71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarón’s trademarks is the long take (think “Children of Men”) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. It’s a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (“Get settled in… this is going to be a long haul”) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarón did it himself! And it’s quite brilliant. So, that’s a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarón wrote the script. Of course he did… it’s his story! He’s the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that he’d done in his past lives! It’s a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodríguez: “Libo” to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out what’s really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
It’s also a love letter from Cuarón to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic “Marooned”: the film that inspired Cuarón’s own masterpiece “Gravity“.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarón withheld the script from his cast, so some of the “acting” is not acting at all – specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. That’s real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the “Best Picture” awards it has been getting. It’s certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (“Put out the small fires kids”), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; “JUST GET ON WITH IT” I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after you’ve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. It’s like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.
A primer on 70’s Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an “Upstairs, Downstairs” tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70’s.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleo’s personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy García García). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy – to who she is devoted – and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramón (José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events – not just the events of the ‘Mexican Dirty War’ of 1971 going on in the background – transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
It’s criminal that I wasn’t able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (“Do you KNOW how much this scene is costing for God’s sake??”), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life – second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June ’71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarón’s trademarks is the long take (think “Children of Men”) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. It’s a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (“Get settled in… this is going to be a long haul”) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarón did it himself! And it’s quite brilliant. So, that’s a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarón wrote the script. Of course he did… it’s his story! He’s the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that he’d done in his past lives! It’s a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodríguez: “Libo” to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out what’s really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
It’s also a love letter from Cuarón to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic “Marooned”: the film that inspired Cuarón’s own masterpiece “Gravity“.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarón withheld the script from his cast, so some of the “acting” is not acting at all – specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. That’s real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the “Best Picture” awards it has been getting. It’s certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (“Put out the small fires kids”), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; “JUST GET ON WITH IT” I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after you’ve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. It’s like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
He captured a feeling. Sky with no ceiling.
A memorable event
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Breakthrough (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The fact that this film is based on a true story is incredible to think about. I haven't read the book that was written by the boy's mother or read about the actual incident and events online, I'm not sure I want to. I usually like finding out the differences to the actual stories but I wonder if in this instance it might make me change the way I feel about the film.
John is off with his friends having fun, and what's more fun than playing out on a frozen lake? By the time they hear the crack it's too late, the three boys go under. With the emergency services on their way it's a countdown to rescuing them. Two of them have their head above water, but John, knocked unconscious while trying to help his friend out of the water, is sinking. When water rescue appears it may already be too late. They take the search slowly, but John could be anywhere, it's almost certainly too late. Tommy is about to call an end to the search when he hears someone telling him to go back, and there he is.
Rushed to the hospital, the doctors and staff work on trying to bring him back, but as the time elapses there is nothing to do but continue until his family arrive. Joyce, his mother, is devastated and not willing to accept that it's the end... and she prays, asking god to save her son... the monitor beeps to life.
Everywhere I see descriptions of this it says "christian drama". I honestly don't see that the word "christian" needs to be in there. Sure, Joyce prays a fair bit, and their pastor is in it a lot too, but it's still just a drama about something miraculous happening.
By far the best performance for me was Chrissy Metz. Joyce comes across as a very determined woman in everything that she does, and Metz really makes that stand out. From the happiness to the heartbreak, it's all believeable, which sometimes doesn't happen with films that are based on true stories.
I enjoyed Mike Colter as Tommy too. As a non-religious man trying to deal with what happened to him, and what he sees happening to John, the thought process was clear on his face and I liked how he visually interacted with those around him in those moments.
By far the strongest scene for me was the one I mentioned above in the hospital. I think it's always quite challenging to create something that has an impact on the viewer when they already know what the outcome is going to be. In this instance we already know that John doesn't die, we just don't know how the situation is remedied. The hospital staff have left the room and Joyce is with her son, she doesn't want to accept what's before her eyes. We cut between her and the staff outside in the hall in what builds up to an incredible moment. The staff reacting to Joyce as she wails in pain is something that was just stuck in my chest, I could really feel it.
While some are saying that Breakthrough is a christian film, but personally it feels more like a film about community. It's about family, about friends, about everyone around us. It also captures some of the things you have to deal with in these situations. Although fleeting at the end of the film, we see John coming to terms with the fact he survived, his miracle is hard to take for other people and they feel like they need answers, but from where? Him?
Everything about the film felt thoughtful and real, even though some bits felt a little cramped at times. By that I mean they clearly wanted to show the "negativity" and realistic thinking of those around John, he didn't have good odds and everyone would be talking about that. But getting that in felt a little cluttered with everything else going on.
I enjoyed this "christian" film, or as I like to call it "film". I spent a significant amount of time with my sleeves pressed up under my eyes, and when the doctors on screen were telling people to breathe I was doing it to recover. It's not a pushy film, I didn't feel the urge to go and join a congregation after watching it, it's just a wonderful reminder that miracles can happen, and while you wait for them there will be people all around you for support even when you don't expect it.
What you should do
It may not be a film to watch for some, I imagine the content may bring back memories that are difficult, but if you're up to it then it's well worth a watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Just a smidge of Joyce's determination would be good.
John is off with his friends having fun, and what's more fun than playing out on a frozen lake? By the time they hear the crack it's too late, the three boys go under. With the emergency services on their way it's a countdown to rescuing them. Two of them have their head above water, but John, knocked unconscious while trying to help his friend out of the water, is sinking. When water rescue appears it may already be too late. They take the search slowly, but John could be anywhere, it's almost certainly too late. Tommy is about to call an end to the search when he hears someone telling him to go back, and there he is.
Rushed to the hospital, the doctors and staff work on trying to bring him back, but as the time elapses there is nothing to do but continue until his family arrive. Joyce, his mother, is devastated and not willing to accept that it's the end... and she prays, asking god to save her son... the monitor beeps to life.
Everywhere I see descriptions of this it says "christian drama". I honestly don't see that the word "christian" needs to be in there. Sure, Joyce prays a fair bit, and their pastor is in it a lot too, but it's still just a drama about something miraculous happening.
By far the best performance for me was Chrissy Metz. Joyce comes across as a very determined woman in everything that she does, and Metz really makes that stand out. From the happiness to the heartbreak, it's all believeable, which sometimes doesn't happen with films that are based on true stories.
I enjoyed Mike Colter as Tommy too. As a non-religious man trying to deal with what happened to him, and what he sees happening to John, the thought process was clear on his face and I liked how he visually interacted with those around him in those moments.
By far the strongest scene for me was the one I mentioned above in the hospital. I think it's always quite challenging to create something that has an impact on the viewer when they already know what the outcome is going to be. In this instance we already know that John doesn't die, we just don't know how the situation is remedied. The hospital staff have left the room and Joyce is with her son, she doesn't want to accept what's before her eyes. We cut between her and the staff outside in the hall in what builds up to an incredible moment. The staff reacting to Joyce as she wails in pain is something that was just stuck in my chest, I could really feel it.
While some are saying that Breakthrough is a christian film, but personally it feels more like a film about community. It's about family, about friends, about everyone around us. It also captures some of the things you have to deal with in these situations. Although fleeting at the end of the film, we see John coming to terms with the fact he survived, his miracle is hard to take for other people and they feel like they need answers, but from where? Him?
Everything about the film felt thoughtful and real, even though some bits felt a little cramped at times. By that I mean they clearly wanted to show the "negativity" and realistic thinking of those around John, he didn't have good odds and everyone would be talking about that. But getting that in felt a little cluttered with everything else going on.
I enjoyed this "christian" film, or as I like to call it "film". I spent a significant amount of time with my sleeves pressed up under my eyes, and when the doctors on screen were telling people to breathe I was doing it to recover. It's not a pushy film, I didn't feel the urge to go and join a congregation after watching it, it's just a wonderful reminder that miracles can happen, and while you wait for them there will be people all around you for support even when you don't expect it.
What you should do
It may not be a film to watch for some, I imagine the content may bring back memories that are difficult, but if you're up to it then it's well worth a watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Just a smidge of Joyce's determination would be good.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Moneyball (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Baseball economics has long a source of serious debate amongst fans, players, and teams. The contentious issues of how to divide the revenue in an equitable manner led to the cancellation of the playoffs and World Series in 1994 and is still largely unresolved today. While smaller market teams are given funds from a luxury tax imposed on larger payroll teams, it still fails to provide an even competitive playing field when large market teams, such as the New York Yankees, can field teams with a $225 million-plus payroll while the smaller market teams have to make do with budgets often under $40 million.
Naturally, this has put many teams at a competitive disadvantage and most feel that they have no chance to win long-term, even as they develop cheap homegrown talent in their minor-league systems. They lose said talent to the larger market clubs once players become eligible for free agency. It is against this backdrop that the new film “Moneyball” starring Brad Pitt is set.
The film was based on the book of the same name which tells the story and philosophy of Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane. Beane was a highly recruited baseball player at a high school who turned down a scholarship to Stanford for his shot at the major leagues. Unfortunately for Beane, his career was a major disappointment punctuated with numerous stops between the pros and the minor leagues which resulted in a very mediocre and forgettable career.
Beane got himself a job as a scout and in time worked his way to being the general manager of the Oakland A’s. As the film opens, Oakland has just lost a deciding Game 5 the New York Yankees, whose payroll at the time was almost $120 million greater than Oaklands. Adding further insult to injury, Oakland is unable to re-sign its three biggest stars as they accept large contracts with the Yankees, Red Sox, and other large market teams.
Unable to get any additional funds from his owner, Beane travels to Cleveland in an attempt to find affordable talent via trades. Beane is categorically rebuffed and told that he couldn’t afford many of the players that he’s asking about and that the ones he can afford are not be available to him.
Beane notices a young man, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) during the negotiations, whose quiet input was heeded by the Indians, even though this is Peter’s first job since graduating from Yale with an economics degree. Beane gets Peter to confide in him about his beliefs that the traditional baseball method for evaluating talent is all wrong and that there is a better way to do it.
Intrigued, Beane hires Brand to be his assistant general manager and the two set out to rebuild the Oakland A’s on a budget. Needless to say this does not sit well with many of the talent scouts or manager Art Howe (a very believable Phillip Seymour Hoffman), who sees the recruiting of washed-up has-beens and never-weres by Beane as misguided and ridiculous.
But Beane and Brand are determined, and using statistical formula that looks at such things as on-base percentages and runs scored as opposed to batting average, home runs, and RBIs, the A’s quickly put together an unlikely team. It doesn’t immediately play out well for the hopeful general manager because Howe is unwilling to play many of the new players that have been brought on. Oakland quickly sinks to the bottom of the league, and many begin to question the sanity of Bean’s approach, to the point that even his young daughter worries that his days as a general manager are numbered.
The film does a good job at showing the inner workings of baseball and Pitt does an amazing job showing the complex nature of Beane. He is a single father dealing with the failure of his playing career, and his inability to get Oakland to be a consistant winner. He puts everything he has into this so-called outrageous scheme and is willing to see it through no matter the cost. Chris Pratt does great supporting work as Scott Hatteberg, one of Beane’s reclamation projects as does Stephen Bisop as aging major-league slugger David Justice.
The film stays very true to historical events and shows the characters as they are, flaws and all. While a true story, Peter Brand, is a fictional charcter based on Paul DePodesta who introduced Beane to the analytical principles of sabermetrics. The movie remains a very interesting character study as well as an examination of the delicate relationships between players, front offices, and ownership where wins and dollars are paramount even when many teams are struggling to make do with less.
That being said the film was a very enjoyable and realistic look at the inner workings of baseball that should not be missed.
Naturally, this has put many teams at a competitive disadvantage and most feel that they have no chance to win long-term, even as they develop cheap homegrown talent in their minor-league systems. They lose said talent to the larger market clubs once players become eligible for free agency. It is against this backdrop that the new film “Moneyball” starring Brad Pitt is set.
The film was based on the book of the same name which tells the story and philosophy of Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane. Beane was a highly recruited baseball player at a high school who turned down a scholarship to Stanford for his shot at the major leagues. Unfortunately for Beane, his career was a major disappointment punctuated with numerous stops between the pros and the minor leagues which resulted in a very mediocre and forgettable career.
Beane got himself a job as a scout and in time worked his way to being the general manager of the Oakland A’s. As the film opens, Oakland has just lost a deciding Game 5 the New York Yankees, whose payroll at the time was almost $120 million greater than Oaklands. Adding further insult to injury, Oakland is unable to re-sign its three biggest stars as they accept large contracts with the Yankees, Red Sox, and other large market teams.
Unable to get any additional funds from his owner, Beane travels to Cleveland in an attempt to find affordable talent via trades. Beane is categorically rebuffed and told that he couldn’t afford many of the players that he’s asking about and that the ones he can afford are not be available to him.
Beane notices a young man, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) during the negotiations, whose quiet input was heeded by the Indians, even though this is Peter’s first job since graduating from Yale with an economics degree. Beane gets Peter to confide in him about his beliefs that the traditional baseball method for evaluating talent is all wrong and that there is a better way to do it.
Intrigued, Beane hires Brand to be his assistant general manager and the two set out to rebuild the Oakland A’s on a budget. Needless to say this does not sit well with many of the talent scouts or manager Art Howe (a very believable Phillip Seymour Hoffman), who sees the recruiting of washed-up has-beens and never-weres by Beane as misguided and ridiculous.
But Beane and Brand are determined, and using statistical formula that looks at such things as on-base percentages and runs scored as opposed to batting average, home runs, and RBIs, the A’s quickly put together an unlikely team. It doesn’t immediately play out well for the hopeful general manager because Howe is unwilling to play many of the new players that have been brought on. Oakland quickly sinks to the bottom of the league, and many begin to question the sanity of Bean’s approach, to the point that even his young daughter worries that his days as a general manager are numbered.
The film does a good job at showing the inner workings of baseball and Pitt does an amazing job showing the complex nature of Beane. He is a single father dealing with the failure of his playing career, and his inability to get Oakland to be a consistant winner. He puts everything he has into this so-called outrageous scheme and is willing to see it through no matter the cost. Chris Pratt does great supporting work as Scott Hatteberg, one of Beane’s reclamation projects as does Stephen Bisop as aging major-league slugger David Justice.
The film stays very true to historical events and shows the characters as they are, flaws and all. While a true story, Peter Brand, is a fictional charcter based on Paul DePodesta who introduced Beane to the analytical principles of sabermetrics. The movie remains a very interesting character study as well as an examination of the delicate relationships between players, front offices, and ownership where wins and dollars are paramount even when many teams are struggling to make do with less.
That being said the film was a very enjoyable and realistic look at the inner workings of baseball that should not be missed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the “ape” in “The Great Esc-ape”.
2011’s “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was the one of the big movie surprises for me of that year. With staggeringly good mo-cap for the apes and a touching and memorable story it was (or would have been) a 5-Fad classic. 2014’s “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” whilst also good took a slight backward step. With “War”, the form is back almost to top notch, and this is a summer release at last deserving of the suffix “blockbuster”.
We have moved a number of years forwards from the events of “Dawn” and society as we know it has crumbled away still further: even the “Holidays are Coming” Coke lorry is no longer in service, so things MUST be bad! We begin the film with the apes having a nice ‘Centre Parcs’ break when their reverie and cappuccinos are rudely interrupted by the attacking forces of “The Colonel” (Woody Harrelson, “Triple 9“, “Zombieland”). For The Colonel is intent on tracking down and killing ape-leader Caesar (Andy Serkis, “LOTR”).
After things get decidedly personal, Caesar leaves his young son Cornelius (in a nice nod to the Roddy McDowell role in the original films) to find and kill The Colonel. So follows a “True Grit” style pursuit/revenge chase, made more similar to this analogy by the picking up of a waif-like mute girl (the excellent Amiah Miller). I found this to be a really emotional plot line, with Caesar torn between the animal drive of his revenge and his role as a leader to his whole community.
The film analogies continue as we take in a “Shining”-style winter hotel; a gritty Prisoner-of-War camp escape drama (“The Great Esc-ape”?); a barricades battle in the style of Helm’s Deep in “LOTR: The Two Towers”; and a full-on Coppola-style helicopter-based war sequence (“Ape-ocalypse now”, as graffiti in the film declares).
Once again, the mo-cap ability to express true emotions on the faces of the apes is mind-blowing, with Serkis again being outstanding as is Steve Zahn (“Dallas Buyer’s Club“) adding some (very funny) comic relief as “Bad Ape”.
While Woody Harrelson is not everyone’s cup of tea (including mine), here I found him to be actually very good (“SO EMOTIONAL”!) as the half crazed dictator forcing beings he sees as less worthy than his kind to build a wall. (That’s just SO familiar… think dammit… think….!). There’s a really cool plot twist in The Colonel’s character arc that I really didn’t see coming. Just so cool.
Another star of the film for me was Michael Giacchino’s music which is simply awesome. Starting with a superbly retro rendition of the 20th Century Fox theme (not top of my list: “The Simpson’s Movie” still holds that spot for me!) Giacchino decorates every scene with great themes and like all great film music some of it you barely notice. A dramatic telling by the Colonel of his back-story is accompanied by sonorous music that is similar in its power to James Horner’s classic “Electronic Battlefield” in “Patriot Games”: only when the scene finishes and the music stops do you appreciate how central it was to the emotion of the scene. (As I sat through all of the end-titles for the music I can also confirm that – despite all the odds – there is no “monkey” at the end!)
The script by “Dawn” collaborators Mark Bomback and (director) Matt Reeves is eventful and packs a dramatic punch particularly in the last half of the film. The talented Mr Reeves (who also directed “Cloverfield” and “Let Me In” and is in assigned to the next Ben Affleck outing as “The Batman”) directs with panache, never letting the foot come off the tension pedal.
On the downside, that “last half of the film” is still 70 minutes away, and whilst I appreciate a leisurely pace for properly setting characters and motivations in place, getting to those simply brilliant scenes set at “the border” is a bit of a slog that might have been tightened up and moved along a bit quicker. Also, while talking about editing, I would have personally ended the film about 90 seconds before they did.
I saw this in 3D, but the effects are subtle at best (although there is a nice binocular rangefinder view). In my opinion it’s not worth going out of your way to experience in 3D.
But overall I loved this movie. The film is chock full of visual delights for film lovers (one of my favourites being “Bedtime for Bonzo” – a nice historical film reference – written on the back of a soldier’s helmet). It’s an epic action film with a strong emotional core to the story that genuinely moved me. There may be other spin-off Planet of the Apes films to follow. But if they left this here, as a near-perfect trilogy, that would be absolutely fine by me.
We have moved a number of years forwards from the events of “Dawn” and society as we know it has crumbled away still further: even the “Holidays are Coming” Coke lorry is no longer in service, so things MUST be bad! We begin the film with the apes having a nice ‘Centre Parcs’ break when their reverie and cappuccinos are rudely interrupted by the attacking forces of “The Colonel” (Woody Harrelson, “Triple 9“, “Zombieland”). For The Colonel is intent on tracking down and killing ape-leader Caesar (Andy Serkis, “LOTR”).
After things get decidedly personal, Caesar leaves his young son Cornelius (in a nice nod to the Roddy McDowell role in the original films) to find and kill The Colonel. So follows a “True Grit” style pursuit/revenge chase, made more similar to this analogy by the picking up of a waif-like mute girl (the excellent Amiah Miller). I found this to be a really emotional plot line, with Caesar torn between the animal drive of his revenge and his role as a leader to his whole community.
The film analogies continue as we take in a “Shining”-style winter hotel; a gritty Prisoner-of-War camp escape drama (“The Great Esc-ape”?); a barricades battle in the style of Helm’s Deep in “LOTR: The Two Towers”; and a full-on Coppola-style helicopter-based war sequence (“Ape-ocalypse now”, as graffiti in the film declares).
Once again, the mo-cap ability to express true emotions on the faces of the apes is mind-blowing, with Serkis again being outstanding as is Steve Zahn (“Dallas Buyer’s Club“) adding some (very funny) comic relief as “Bad Ape”.
While Woody Harrelson is not everyone’s cup of tea (including mine), here I found him to be actually very good (“SO EMOTIONAL”!) as the half crazed dictator forcing beings he sees as less worthy than his kind to build a wall. (That’s just SO familiar… think dammit… think….!). There’s a really cool plot twist in The Colonel’s character arc that I really didn’t see coming. Just so cool.
Another star of the film for me was Michael Giacchino’s music which is simply awesome. Starting with a superbly retro rendition of the 20th Century Fox theme (not top of my list: “The Simpson’s Movie” still holds that spot for me!) Giacchino decorates every scene with great themes and like all great film music some of it you barely notice. A dramatic telling by the Colonel of his back-story is accompanied by sonorous music that is similar in its power to James Horner’s classic “Electronic Battlefield” in “Patriot Games”: only when the scene finishes and the music stops do you appreciate how central it was to the emotion of the scene. (As I sat through all of the end-titles for the music I can also confirm that – despite all the odds – there is no “monkey” at the end!)
The script by “Dawn” collaborators Mark Bomback and (director) Matt Reeves is eventful and packs a dramatic punch particularly in the last half of the film. The talented Mr Reeves (who also directed “Cloverfield” and “Let Me In” and is in assigned to the next Ben Affleck outing as “The Batman”) directs with panache, never letting the foot come off the tension pedal.
On the downside, that “last half of the film” is still 70 minutes away, and whilst I appreciate a leisurely pace for properly setting characters and motivations in place, getting to those simply brilliant scenes set at “the border” is a bit of a slog that might have been tightened up and moved along a bit quicker. Also, while talking about editing, I would have personally ended the film about 90 seconds before they did.
I saw this in 3D, but the effects are subtle at best (although there is a nice binocular rangefinder view). In my opinion it’s not worth going out of your way to experience in 3D.
But overall I loved this movie. The film is chock full of visual delights for film lovers (one of my favourites being “Bedtime for Bonzo” – a nice historical film reference – written on the back of a soldier’s helmet). It’s an epic action film with a strong emotional core to the story that genuinely moved me. There may be other spin-off Planet of the Apes films to follow. But if they left this here, as a near-perfect trilogy, that would be absolutely fine by me.